Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684161›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2025

Ethical challenges in sensitive research: a reflective narrative on managing the clinician-researcher dual role.

Yakubu Salifu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Yakubu SalifuInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. y.salifu@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5523-3010

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConducting sensitive research in healthcare settings often presents complex ethical challenges, particularly when clinicians assume a dual role as researchers. This dual role, while providing valuable insight, can lead to ethical dilemmas when professional responsibilities intersect with research obligations, especially in resource-limited and culturally sensitive environments. This reflective narrative explores these ethical tensions through the lens of a qualitative study involving men living with advanced prostate cancer and their family caregivers.

methodThe study employed a qualitative design, drawing on individual and dyadic interviews, as well as focus group discussions with healthcare professionals. A reflective narrative approach was chosen as the method to critically engage with the researcher’s personal experiences, ethical dilemmas, and the emotional complexities of conducting research in this context. The approach was justified as it provides a means of exploring both the data and the reflective, situated nature of the clinician–researcher role, which is essential for understanding the broader implications of conducting sensitive research.

resultsThe analysis revealed several key ethical challenges, including emotional labour, professional role conflicts, and the management of therapeutic boundaries. The clinician–researcher dual role significantly shaped participant consent, data collection, and interpretation of findings. It highlighted the vulnerability of both participants and researchers, especially in emotionally charged, culturally sensitive contexts. Ethical tensions often arose between maintaining professional objectivity and addressing the immediate care needs of participants, underscoring the importance of reflexivity in navigating these complexities.

conclusionThis reflection calls for enhanced ethical preparation and emotional resilience among nurse researchers, particularly those working with vulnerable populations in sensitive research areas like palliative care. The study emphasises the need for clear boundary protocols, structured reflexive journaling, and regular peer debriefing to help clinician–researchers navigate their dual roles while maintaining ethical integrity. The findings contribute to the discourse on ethical praxis in qualitative health research, offering practical strategies for managing the inherent challenges of conducting research in ethically complex environments.

Indexed as

Professional RoleResearcher-Subject RelationsResearch PersonnelCognitive ReflectionEthical DilemmasFocus GroupsHumansMaleNarrationProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchClinician-researcherCultural sensitivitiesDual roleEthical dilemmasProstate cancerQualitative researchReflexivityResearch ethicsSensitive researchTherapeutic relationship

Identifiers

PMID40684161
PMCPMC12275307

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.