BackgroundDespite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.MethodsRapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ (...) in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.Results393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.ConclusionsOnly 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research. (shrink)

The Hospital Ethical Climate Survey was developed in the USA and later shortened. HECS has previously been translated into Swedish and the aim of this study was to describe a process of translating and culturally adapting HECS-S and to develop a Swedish multi-professional version, relevant for paediatrics. Another aim was to describe decisions about retaining versus modifying the questionnaire in order to keep the Swedish version as close as possible to the original while achieving a good functional level and trustworthiness. (...) In HECS-S, the respondents are asked to indicate the veracity of statements. In HECS and HECS-S the labels of the scale range from ‘almost never true’ to ‘almost always true’; while the Swedish HECS labels range from ‘never’ to ‘always’. The procedure of translating and culturally adapting the Swedish version followed the scientific structure of guidelines. Three focus group interviews and three cognitive interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals. Furthermore, descriptive data were used from a previous study with healthcare professionals, employing a modified Swedish HECS. Decisions on retaining or modifying items were made in a review group. The Swedish HECS-S consists of 21 items including all 14 items from HECS-S and items added to develop a multi-professional version, relevant for paediatrics. The descriptive data showed that few respondents selected ‘never’ and ‘always’. To obtain a more even distribution of responses and keep Swedish HECS-S close to HECS-S, the original labels were retained. Linguistic adjustments were made to retain the intended meaning of the original items. The word ‘respect’ was used in HECS-S with two different meanings and was replaced in one of these because participants were concerned that respecting patients’ wishes implied always complying with them. The process of developing a Swedish HECS-S included decisions on whether to retain or modify. Only minor adjustments were needed to achieve a good functional level and trustworthiness although some items needed to be added. Adjustments made could be used to also improve the English HECS-S. The results shed further light on the need to continuously evaluate even validated instruments and adapt them before use. (shrink)

Ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) in forensic genetics investigations (FGIs) also involve conducting a careful assessment of the potential benefits and responsible use of genetic information. FGIs have become an invaluable tool in solving crimes and identifying individuals in various legal and investigative contexts. Moreover, forensic geneticists are called on to manage a series of controversial aspects during the daily practice of forensic investigation, including informed consent, cases of unintended genetic findings, the proband’s privacy, post-mortem sample collection, misinterpretation of (...) results, and the correct management of genetic databases. In this scenario, this article aims to discuss the main aspects of ELSIs regarding FGIs, providing an opportunity to delve into the complexities and nuances of ethical decision-making in the context of FGIs, considering that justice should be served while upholding the highest ethical standards. To date, ELSIs in FGIs involve respecting human dignity, safeguarding privacy, ensuring justice, promoting social solidarity, and carefully weighing up risks and benefits. By adhering to these principles, the forensic geneticist can advance criminal justice while upholding individual rights and privacy. In this way, the development of clear guidelines and protocols can help navigate this ethical dilemma and ensure that FGIs are conducted with integrity, transparency, and respect for individual autonomy. (shrink)

Background In nursing homes, residents’ relatives represent important sources of support for nurses. However, in the heightened stress of emergency situations, interaction between nurses and relatives can raise ethical challenges. Research objectives The present analysis aimed at elaborating a typology of nurses’ experience of ethical support and challenges in their interaction with relatives in emergency situations. Research design Thirty-three semi-structured interviews and six focus groups were conducted with nurses from different nursing homes in Germany. Data were analysed according to Mayring’s (...) method of qualitative content analysis. Participants and research context Participants were licensed nurses working in nursing homes. Ethical considerations Ethical approval was granted by Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences (02.07.2020) and the Ethics Committee of Hannover Medical School (Nr. 8866_BO_K_2020; 27.01.2020). Interviewees were anonymised and focus group were pseudonymised during transcription. All participants provided written consent. Findings/results In emergency situations, relatives can represent important sources of support for nurses. However, they may also give rise to different challenges, relating to four ethical conflicts: (1) the challenge of meeting the information needs of relatives while providing appropriate care to all residents; (2) the challenge of managing relatives’ demands for hospitalisation when hospitalisation is not deemed necessary by nurses; (3) the challenge of managing relatives’ demands for lifesaving treatment when such treatment contradicts the will of the resident; and (4) the challenge of attempting to initiate hospitalisation when relatives oppose this course of action. Several external factors make these conflicts especially challenging for nurses: fear of legal consequences, a low staffing ratio, and a lack of qualified nursing staff. Conclusions Conflict between nurses and relatives typically revolves around hospitalisation and the initiation of lifesaving treatment. Whether nurses perceive interaction with relatives as supportive or conflictual essentially depends on the quality of the relationship, which may be negatively influenced by a number of external factors. (shrink)