ReviewBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical complexities in rehabilitation research: an integrative review of challenges and principles.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRehabilitation research involves unique ethical complexities due to the heterogeneous nature of disability and participant vulnerability. Despite established international ethical principles, there appears to be a significant gap in context-sensitive ethical frameworks specifically tailored for rehabilitation settings. This integrative review aims to analyze the ethical challenges and principles reported in rehabilitation research.
methodsFollowing the integrative review methodology by Whittemore and Knafl (2005), a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from their inception to December 2024. The search strategy used controlled vocabulary and keywords related to ethics, rehabilitation, and disability. Additional hand searching of reference lists and key journals was conducted to ensure comprehensive coverage. The review included all studies published in English, focusing on ethical issues in rehabilitation research. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method.
resultsFrom 150 initially identified records, nine studies met full inclusion criteria. The analysis and subsequent interpretation of the evidence identified seven interconnected ethical domains: (1) systemic neglect of specialized ethical guidelines; (2) methodological challenges jeopardizing ethical rigor; (2) complexities in decision-making capacity and informed consent; (4) therapeutic misconception and inflated hope for a cure; (5) communication barriers; (6) ethical ambiguities in participant incentives; and (7) institutional and systemic barriers within ethics review boards.
conclusionThe synthesized evidence suggests that ethical challenges in rehabilitation research are multifaceted and deeply interconnected. The findings highlight the need to shift from reactive compliance toward a more proactive, integrated system of ethical governance. Future efforts can focus on developing context-sensitive ethical guidance, strengthening stakeholder engagement, and promoting adaptive research methodologies to ensure rehabilitation research remains ethically grounded and socially relevant.
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.