ArticleGlobal qualitative nursing research
Autoethnography in Nursing Education: An Integrative Review of Methodological Variants, Quality Practices, and Ethical Considerations (2010-2025).
Article in Global qualitative nursing research. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autoethnography is increasingly used in nursing education research to examine the relational, embodied, and often hidden dimensions of teaching, learning, and professional socialization. Yet uneven use of variant-sensitive approaches, quality frameworks, and ethics reporting suggests continuing methodological inconsistency. We conducted an integrative review of autoethnographic nursing education literature published between 2010 and 2025, examining five dimensions: (1) variant definitions and operationalization, (2) quality appraisal frameworks, (3) reflexivity and positionality practices, (4) credibility strategies, and (5) ethical procedures, including attention to implicated others. Systematic searches of CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science yielded 23 eligible studies. Collaborative autoethnography predominated (56%), and several studies, especially those examining the experiences of racially minoritized faculty, explicitly positioned autoethnography as a decolonizing approach and demonstrated stronger reported reflexive practices. Reflexivity, as represented in published manuscripts, ranged from integrated positionality analyses that informed analytic decisions to brief, largely token acknowledgment. Findings suggest that nursing education scholarship may benefit from a fit-for-variant approach to appraisal and clearer field expectations for relational ethics reporting, especially given power differentials when faculty write about students, colleagues, and institutions. More explicit linking of standpoint to analysis may advance methodological transparency and interpretive credibility.
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.