ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Conducting Eye-Tracking Research in Acute Care: A Scoping Review of Ethical, Feasibility and Acceptability Challenges.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conducting Eye-Tracking Research in Acute Care: A Scoping Review of Ethical, Feasibility and Acceptability Challenges.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify and synthesise the ethical, feasibility and acceptability challenges associated with implementing eye-tracking research with clinicians in acute care settings and to explore strategies to address these concerns.
designScoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global) were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also hand-searched.
methodsEligible studies involved clinicians using or interacting with eye-tracking devices in acute care environments and addressed at least one ethical, feasibility, or acceptability consideration. Data were extracted and thematically analysed. Knowledge users, including clinicians, ethicists and a patient partner, were engaged during protocol development and findings synthesis.
resultsTwenty-five studies published from 2010 to 2024 were included. Seven challenges were identified: obtaining ethical approval, managing consent, privacy and confidentiality concerns, collecting data in unpredictable environments, interference with care, participant comfort and data loss or unreliability. Knowledge users highlighted the importance of early institutional engagement, clear protocols, continuous consent and context-sensitive ethical reflection.
conclusionsEye-tracking offers valuable insights into clinician behaviour and cognition, but its implementation in acute care raises complex ethical and methodological issues. Responsible use requires anticipatory planning, stakeholder engagement and flexible yet rigorous protocols. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: By informing the development of ethically sound study protocols and consent practices, this work contributes to safer, more transparent and patient-centred research that respects participant autonomy and protects clinical workflows. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jn4yx). REPORTING
methodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Page et al., 2021) and its Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient partner was involved in protocol development, interpretation of findings and development of study recommendations. Their contributions included participating in advisory groups and providing feedback alongside clinicians and ethicists during focus groups. This input helped ensure the research addressed patient-relevant priorities and informed the development of ethically responsible practices for conducting eye-tracking research in clinical care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.