ArticleInternational nursing review2026
Early-Career Nurse Researchers' Perspectives on Research Ethics Review in China: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.
Article in International nursing review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore how early-career nurse researchers in China perceive and experience the research ethics review process.
backgroundEthics review protects participants and supports research integrity. Nursing researchers may encounter procedures that do not readily account for low-risk, qualitative and care-oriented designs. Recent Chinese national ethics-review measures provide simplified pathways for minimal-risk studies, but how these operate for nursing research is not well understood.
designA descriptive qualitative study.
methodsTwelve nursing researchers within the first 10 years of a research-active role were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Mandarin between February and March 2025. Data were analysed using a codebook approach to thematic analysis. The study was reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.
resultsFour themes were developed: perceived benefits of ethics review, systemic friction, the black box of review and the expertise gap. Participants valued ethics review for protecting participants and strengthening rigour, but described complex and repetitive procedures, long waits for approval, limited transparency and committees they perceived as lacking nursing expertise.
conclusionParticipants supported ethical oversight but perceived a mismatch between some review practices and the risk profile and methods of nursing research. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nursing schools, hospitals and research leaders should provide pre-submission consultation, practical ethics education and mentoring for early-career researchers, and should develop a pool of nurses prepared to contribute to multidisciplinary ethics review. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Regulators and institutions should operationalise risk-proportionate review with clear eligibility criteria, transparent reasons for decisions, monitored timelines and access to relevant disciplinary expertise.
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.