ReviewSAGE open nursing
Vulnerability Within A Nursing Clinical Practice. A Qualitative Review.
Review in SAGE open nursing. 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.
- Invisible Hands Behind Clean Hands: Procurement Justice, Materiality, and Nursing Praxis.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vulnerability is a fundamental human condition shaped by existential interdependence and social structures. In nursing, it is experienced by both patients and nurses, influenced by care relationships, institutional norms, and ethical responsibilities. This review explores how the phenomenon of vulnerability is reflected in the research literature on nursing clinical practice, from both patient and nurse perspectives. Methods: A qualitative literature search of eight bibliographic databases (inception to 13 May 2025) identified 29 papers, assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist (CASP-QC). Data were analysed through qualitative content analysis inspired by Graneheim, Lundman and Lindgren. Results: Socioeconomic and sociopolitical conditions shape vulnerability by influencing care needs and perceptions of healthcare and nursing. Physical changes that compromise bodily autonomy expose patients to undignified care, as loss of control over one's body can lead to embarrassment, shame, and diminished dignity. A lack of holistic care increases patient vulnerability when professionals fail to recognise patients as unique individuals. Nurses' vulnerability is portrayed as a significant burden, shaped by personal suffering, grief, and contextual work factors. This suffering may result in emotional distancing from patients when nurses lack the courage to engage. Conclusion: Vulnerability is multifaceted, shaped by personal, relational, and sociopolitical conditions. Patients often experience vulnerability through lack of recognition of individuality and dignity, while nurses face emotional strain, knowledge gaps, ethical tensions and limited support. Vulnerability can also be viewed as a strength, fostering ethical sensitivity, moral courage and deeper nurse-patient relationships.
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.