This article presents a descriptive, interpretive theory of ethical responsibility in public health nursing. The theory is based on qualitative empirical studies, a purposeful literature review and meta-ethnography of public health nurses’ experiences of ethical responsibility, interpreted within a philosophical framework. Levianasian philosophy provides the main direction for the authors’ interpretations. The path for theory development consists of three phases: an inspirational phase, an explorative phase and the third phase ‘joining the dots’. The theory illustrates that ethical responsibility in public health nursing is related to the life existentials of temporality and human relationships. Due to blurred boundaries in these essential life structures, public health nurses can experience a sense of satisfaction but also worries, uncertainties and loneliness. The study reveals paradoxical connections between fear and courage, and between freedom, autonomy and a sense of entrapment in responsible relationships. The authors purport that the results of this study are relevant for education and practice and can provide direction for further studies on developing theories of ethical responsibility in other nursing specialities.
MuddAFeoRConroyT, et al.Where and how does fundamental care fit within seminal nursing theories: a narrative review and synthesis of key nursing concepts. J Clin Nurs2020; 29: 3652–3666. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15420.
2.
ClancyAHovdenJTAndersenRA, et al.Public health nurses’ experiences of ethical responsibility: a meta-ethnography. Nurs Ethics2023; 31: 875–895. DOI: 10.1177/09697330231209294.
3.
BenderMGracePJGreenC, et al.The role of philosophy in the development and practice of nursing: past, present and future. Nurs Philos2021; 22: e12363. DOI: 10.1111/nup.12363.
4.
ThorneS. Reflections on the nursing theory movement. Nurs Philos2022; 23: e12406. DOI: 10.1111/nup.12406.
5.
SmithMJLiehrPRCarpenterRD. Middle range theory for nursing. Berlin, Germany: Springer Publishing Company, 2023.
6.
ImE-O. Theory development strategies for middle-range theories. ANS Adv Nurs Sci2018; 41: 275–292. DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000215.
7.
HoeckBDelmarC. Theoretical development in the context of nursing—the hidden epistemology of nursing theory. Nurs Philos2018; 19: e12196. DOI: 10.1111/nup.12196.
8.
ChinnPLKramerMK. Knowledge development in nursing: theory and process. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2014.
9.
LiehrPSmithMJ. Middle range theory: a perspective on development and use. ANS Adv Nurs Sci2017; 40: 51–63. DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000162.
10.
EloSKääriäinenMIsolaA, et al.Developing and testing a middle-range theory of the well-being supportive physical environment of home-dwelling elderly. Sci World J2013; 2013: 945635. DOI: 10.1155/2013/945635.
11.
LaholtHClancyA. Sykepleiefaglig grunnlag i norske helsesykepleierutdanninger – en dybdeanalyse av pensuminnhold og abstraksjonsnivå. Klin Sygepleje2024; 38: 3–16. DOI: 10.18261/ks.38.1.2.
12.
FawcettJDeSanto-MadeyaS. Contemporary nursing knowledge: analysis and evaluation of nursing models and theories. Philadelphia, PA: Fa Davis, 2013.
13.
SandelowskiM. Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res2004; 14: 1366–1386. DOI: 10.1177/1049732304269672.
14.
BergdahlEBerteröCM. Creating theory: encouragement for using creativity and deduction in qualitative nursing research. Nurs Philos2023; 24: e12421. DOI: 10.1111/nup.12421.
15.
AlligoodMR. Nursing theorists and their work-E-book: nursing theorists and their work-e-book. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2017.
16.
LøgstrupKE. The ethical demand. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020.
17.
MartinsenK. Fra Marx til Løgstrup: om etik og sanselighed i sygeplejen. København, Denmark: Munksgaard, 1994.
18.
MulcahyHLeahy-WarrenPLaholtH, et al.Public health nursing education in Ireland and Norway: a comparative analysis. Public Health Nurs2022; 39: 279–285. DOI: 10.1111/phn.13039.
19.
LaholtHBergvollLMFjelldalSS, et al.An analysis of Norwegian public health nursing curricula: where is the nursing literature?Public Health Nurs2022; 39: 251–261. DOI: 10.1111/phn.12979.
20.
ClancyASvenssonT. Perceptions of public health nursing consultations: tacit understanding of the importance of relationships. Prim Health Care2010; 11: 363–373.
21.
ClancyALeahy-WarrenPDayM, et al.Primary health care: comparing public health nursing models in Ireland and Norway. Nurs Res Pract2013; 2013: 426107. DOI: 10.1155/2013/426107.
22.
The Norwegian Directorate of Health. Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for helsestasjon, skolehelsetjeneste og helsestasjon for ungdom [National guidelines for child health clinics, school health service, and adolescent health clinics] [onlinedocument]. Oslo, Norway: Helsedirektoratet. https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/helsestasjons-og-skolehelsetjenesten (2017, last change 30th June 2023, read 27th June 2024).
23.
LaholtHGuilleminMMcLeodK, et al.Visual methods in health dialogues: a qualitative study of public health nurse practice in schools. J Adv Nurs2017; 73: 3070–3078. DOI: 10.1111/jan.13371.
StievanoATschudinV. The ICN code of ethics for nurses: a time for revision. Int Nurs Rev2019; 66: 154–156. DOI: 10.1111/inr.12525.
26.
ClancyASvenssonT. ‘Faced’ with responsibility: levinasian ethics and the challenges of responsibility in Norwegian public health nursing. Nurs Philos2007; 8: 158–166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2007.00311.x.
27.
TollefsenASOlsenABClancyA. Nurses’ experiences of ethical responsibility: a hermeneutic phenomenological design. Nord J Nurs Res2021; 41: 34–41. DOI: 10.1177/2057158520967900.
28.
MillikenAGraceP. Nurse ethical awareness: understanding the nature of everyday practice. Nurs Ethics2017; 24: 517–524. DOI: 10.1177/0969733015615172.
29.
OberleKTenoveS. Ethical issues in public health nursing. Nurs Ethics2000; 7: 425–438. DOI: 10.1177/096973300000700507.
30.
McCarthyJ. Moral instability: the upsides for nursing practice. Nurs Philos2010; 11: 127–135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00434.x.
31.
NathanielA. Theory of moral reckoning. In: SmithMJLiehrPR (eds). Middle Range Theory for Nursing. 3 ed.New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2014, pp. 329–347.
32.
LevinasE. Totality and infinity: an essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1969.
33.
CritchleySBernasconiR. The cambridge companion to Levinas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
34.
LevinasE. Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 1991.
35.
Finfgeld-ConnettDJohnsonED. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs2013; 69: 194–204. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06037.x.
36.
DahlBMClancyAAndrewsT. The meaning of ethically charged encounters and their possible influence on professional identity in Norwegian public health nursing: a phenomenological hermeneutic study. Scand J Caring Sci2014; 28: 600–608. DOI: 10.1111/scs.12089.
37.
FranceEFUnyIRingN, et al.A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Med Res Methodol2019; 19: 5–18. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7.
38.
GadamerH-G. Truth and method. 2nd, rev. translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (ed). London: Sheed & Ward, 1989.
39.
RobsonC. Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. 3rd ed.Chichester, UK, 2002.
40.
HilliYPedersenG. School nurses’ engagement and care ethics in promoting adolescent health. Nurs Ethics2021; 28: 967–979.
41.
HeggestadAKTFørdeRMagelssenM, et al.Ethics reflection groups for school nurses. Nurs Ethics2021; 28: 3–220. DOI: 10.1177/0969733020940373.
42.
NortvedtP. Subjectivity and vulnerability: reflections on the foundation of ethical sensibility. Nurs Philos2003; 4: 222–230. DOI: 10.1046/j.1466-769X.2003.00120.x.
43.
StievanoAMynttinenMRoccoG, et al.Public health nurses’ professional dignity: an interview study in Finland. Nurs Ethics2022; 29: 3–17.
44.
JonasH. The imperative of responsibility: in search for an ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1984.
45.
PajakoskiERannikkoSLeino-KilpiH, et al.Moral courage in nursing–An integrative literature review. Nurs Health Sci2021; 23: 570–585. DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12805.
46.
Van ManenM. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge, 1997.
47.
WallinvirtaE.Ansvar som klangbotten i vårdandets meningssammanhang. [Responsibility as a Sounding Board in a Caring Context]. Åbo Akademis förlag – Åbo akademy university press. 2011; [dissertation].241p. https://urn.fi/URN.
48.
YanSSlatteryP. The fearful ethical subject: on the fear for the other, moral education, and Levinas in the pandemic. Stud Philos Educ2021; 40: 81–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-020-09743-8.
49.
GreenJThorogoodN. Qualitative methods for health research. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2018.
50.
BondasTHallEO. A decade of metasynthesis research in health sciences: a meta-method study. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being2007; 2: 101–113.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
