Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39895459›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2025

Addressing Potential Researcher Distress in Nurse-Led Research: Ethical Considerations and Practical Strategies.

Carmel Bond, Adrianna Watson, Debra Jackson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carmel BondSheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9945-8577
Adrianna WatsonBrigham Young University, Provo, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0134-0520
Debra JacksonUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5252-5325

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo discuss the need for nurse researchers to consider to the potential for psychological distress when conducting studies on sensitive topics.

designDiscursive paper.

methodsDrawing from existing literature, we highlight the ethical obligations of researchers to recognise and manage their emotional responses, especially as these can potentially lead to burnout and re-traumatization. In this paper, we propose practical strategies to mitigate these risks, including trauma-informed practices, peer support systems, structured mentorship and the establishment of vicarious trauma (VT) plans.

conclusionPrioritising researcher well-being in nursing research is essential for ethical practices and the mental health of those involved in undertaking research in sensitive areas. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Support strategies, such as formal team debriefings, resilience training, VT plans and peer support, can foster safer and healthier research environments, when researching in sensitive areas.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalNursing ResearchResearch PersonnelStress, PsychologicalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedmoral distressnurse researchernursing researchsecondary traumatic stressvicarious traumatisation

Identifiers

PMID39895459
PMCPMC11896832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.