ArticleBMC nursing2026
Advantages, limitations, and ethical concerns of AI-assisted qualitative research in nursing: insights from a human-AI comparative thematic analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
backgroundThe rapid development of large language models has accelerated the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in qualitative research. AI-assisted thematic analysis may improve coding efficiency and data organization, but concerns remain about its ability to interpret emotionally nuanced, contextually embedded, and culturally situated nursing narratives. Existing studies have emphasized coding performance and efficiency, whereas ethical and interpretive concerns in nursing qualitative research remain insufficiently examined.
objectiveThis secondary qualitative analysis compared human-led reflexive thematic analysis and ChatGPT-assisted thematic analysis of the same nursing interview dataset and explored the advantages, limitations, and ethical concerns of AI-assisted qualitative inquiry in nursing.
methodsSemi-structured interview data originally collected within a broader nursing research platform project were analyzed through two separate pathways: human-led reflexive thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke's approach and ChatGPT-assisted thematic analysis. The research team compared the outputs to examine convergence, divergence, contextual simplification, thematic representation, and ethical implications. Ethical concerns were interpreted through comparative and reflexive analysis.
resultsThe research team observed that AI-assisted analysis supported rapid data organization, preliminary coding, and identification of explicit thematic patterns. However, the two analytic pathways differed in their representation of contextual meanings, tacit nursing knowledge, and experience-based nursing narratives. Through comparative and reflexive interpretation, four ethical themes were identified: privacy and data security concerns; loss of contextual and emotional understanding; algorithmic reductionism and cultural bias; and changing roles and responsibilities in nursing research. AI-assisted outputs tended to be semantically coherent but contextually simplified.
conclusionsIn this study, AI-assisted qualitative analysis was useful as a supportive tool for preliminary thematic exploration and data organization. However, human reflexive engagement remained essential for contextual interpretation, ethical judgment, and the representation of nursing experiences. The findings suggest that ethical concerns extend beyond technical performance to contextual representation, interpretive integrity, and researcher responsibility. Future research should develop reflexive, ethically grounded human-AI collaborative approaches to qualitative nursing inquiry. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.