# Ethical Issues in Conducting Research Using Human Participants in the Post-COVID Era

Joseph Dave Pregoner, Reanne Leopardas, Ivy Joy Ganancial, Marnelle

Baguhin, Flordelis Sedo

► To cite this version:

Joseph Dave Pregoner, Reanne Leopardas, Ivy Joy Ganancial, Marnelle Baguhin, Flordelis Sedo. Ethical Issues in Conducting Research Using Human Participants in the Post-COVID Era. IMCC Journal of Science, 2025, 5 (1), pp.1-9. hal-05073466

HAL Id: hal-05073466

https://hal.science/hal-05073466v1

Submitted on 19 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Ethical Issues in Conducting Research Using Human Participants in the Post-COVID Era

Joseph Dave Pregoner <fnref n="1" />,*, Reanne Leopardas <fnref n="2" />, Ivy Joy Ganancial <fnref n="3" />, Marnelle Baguhin <fnref n="3" />, Flordelis Sedo <fnref n="3" />

## Abstract

This paper explores the ethical issues in conducting research with human participants in the post-COVID era, focusing on critical concerns such as informed consent in a digital age, privacy and data protection, risk-benefit analysis, and equity in participant recruitment. It also examines the importance of transparency in research funding and sponsorship, the ethical use of technology, and mental health considerations for participants. The paper highlights global health ethics and cross-cultural sensitivity, the long-term ethical implications of COVID-19 studies, and the need to prioritize researcher safety and well-being. Furthermore, the paper highlights strategies to mitigate these ethical challenges and ensure the integrity and fairness of research practices in the evolving research landscape.

**Keywords:** ethical issues, human participants, post-COVID era, research

**Type:** Review Article

Received: 27 June 2024; Revised: 02 March 2025; Accepted for publication: 14 March 2025; Published online: 19 March 2025

## 1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the global research landscape, prompting an unprecedented shift in how studies are conducted, particularly those involving human participants (Park et al., 2021). As governments and institutions sought rapid solutions to combat the pandemic, researchers were tasked with accelerating their work, sometimes bypassing traditional protocols to meet urgent demands (Müller et al., 2023). While these efforts yielded significant advancements, including life-saving vaccines and treatments, they also revealed significant ethical concerns regarding the protection of participants' rights, privacy, and safety. These concerns, initially amplified by the pandemic's emergency nature, continue to challenge research practices in the post-COVID era, requiring a critical re-examination of ethical guidelines and practices to ensure that future research is conducted with respect, transparency, and accountability (Monrad, 2020).

In the wake of the pandemic, the reliance on digital tools for data collection and participant recruitment has increased, bringing new challenges to informed consent, privacy, and data protection (Roberts et al., 2021). The integration of vulnerable populations in research, along with the need for global collaboration, has highlighted the limitations of existing ethical frameworks, particularly in terms of equity and accessibility (Newman et al., 2021). As research continues to evolve in an increasingly digital and interconnected world, the risks associated with technological

reliance, data security, and participant well-being have become more pronounced (Dutt, 2023).

The post-COVID era also introduces unique ethical challenges related to long-term studies that assess the broader societal and psychological impacts of the pandemic. These studies often involve diverse populations from different cultural and social backgrounds, which further complicates the ethical considerations. Global health ethics, cultural sensitivity, and cross-border research pose additional layers of complexity, especially as research becomes more integrated across national and cultural boundaries. This paper will explore these multifaceted ethical issues, focusing on how they impact participant recruitment, data collection, and the long-term implications of research findings. Additionally, it will propose strategies to mitigate these ethical challenges, ensuring that research in the post-COVID era is not only scientifically rigorous but also ethically sound.

## 2. Informed Consent in a Digital Age

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research, but the rapid shift to digital platforms post-COVID has introduced new challenges (Roberts et al., 2021). Traditionally, obtaining informed consent involved face-to-face interactions where participants had the opportunity to engage with researchers, ask questions, and receive clarification on the study's purpose, risks, and benefits. This personal interaction helped ensure participants were fully informed and able to make autonomous decisions about their involvement (Nusbaum et al., 2017). However, in the digital age, consent is

<footnote n="1">¹ Graduate School of Business Management, Philippine Christian University, Manila, Philippines</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Education-Davao City Division, Davao, Philippines; reanne.leopardas@deped.gov.ph (R.L.)</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Basic Education Department-Senior High School Unit, University of the Immaculate Conception, Davao, Philippines; iganancial@uic.edu.ph (I.J.G.); mbaguhin@uic.edu.ph (M.B.); fsedo@uic.edu.ph (F.S.)</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: joseph.pregoner.phd@pcu.edu.ph</footnote>
increasingly obtained through electronic forms and checkboxes, which may not provide sufficient context or understanding for participants (Utz et al., 2019). The absence of direct communication with researchers diminishes the chance for participants to ask questions or discuss any concerns they might have, leaving them vulnerable to making uninformed or coerced decisions (Cohen et al., 2017).

One of the most significant ethical concerns associated with digital consent is the digital divide, which disproportionately affects certain groups, such as older adults, those in rural areas, or individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These groups may lack the technological literacy or access required to navigate digital consent processes, leading to unequal participation in research (Litchfield et al., 2021). Furthermore, many participants may not fully understand the implications of their consent, such as how their data will be used or shared (VandeVusse et al., 2022). In some cases, the complexity of digital platforms might intimidate or overwhelm participants, creating a barrier to truly informed consent. This technological gap undermines the principle of autonomy, as participants may feel compelled to consent without fully grasping the study's scope or potential risks (Slupska et al., 2021).

Another challenge arises from the erosion of trust between researchers and participants when consent is obtained through digital means (Richards & Hartzog, 2018). In traditional research settings, participants can develop a rapport with researchers, increasing their confidence in the study's goals and procedures (Kornbluh, 2015). However, digital consent processes can feel impersonal, leaving participants uncertain about the motivations behind the research. This uncertainty can breed skepticism, which may discourage participation or cause misunderstandings about the study's objectives, its risks, and the use of participants' data (Roulet et al., 2017). When participants lack trust in the research process, the integrity of the study is compromised, potentially affecting its outcomes and public perception (Petrova et al., 2016).

## 3. Privacy and Data Protection

As research increasingly shifts to digital platforms, the ethical complexities of privacy and data protection have become more pronounced (Quach et al., 2022). The collection and storage of personal data, particularly sensitive information such as health records, genetic data, and mental health histories, raises concerns about the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access. These issues are especially critical in the context of the pandemic, as large volumes of personal health data are being generated and shared across multiple platforms (Thapa & Camtepe, 2021). The consequences of a data breach can be devastating for participants, leading to identity theft, discrimination, or other forms of harm (Martin et al., 2017). Despite these risks, many research institutions still lack robust data protection mechanisms, leaving participants vulnerable to potential breaches (Pool et al., 2024).

The lack of transparency in data collection and storage practices further exacerbates the ethical concerns surrounding privacy (Dhirani et al., 2023). Participants often do not fully understand how their data will be stored, who will have access to it, or how long it will be retained. This uncertainty undermines participants' ability to make informed decisions about their involvement in research (Saunders et al., 2015). Without clear and accessible information about data handling procedures, individuals cannot exercise proper

control over their personal data (Danezis et al., 2015). Moreover, the ongoing development of new technologies and digital platforms often leads to rapid changes in data management practices, which may not be communicated effectively to participants, leaving them unaware of evolving risks. Such practices violate fundamental ethical principles, particularly autonomy and respect for persons (Dwivedi et al., 2020).

Cross-border research adds another layer of complexity to data protection, as differences in data privacy laws between countries can create inconsistencies in how participant data is handled (Voss, 2019). For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides strict guidelines on data protection, while other countries may have less stringent regulations, leading to uneven safeguards for participants in multinational studies. These disparities create ethical dilemmas, especially in global research efforts, where data may be shared across borders. Participants from regions with weaker data protection laws may face higher risks, and their informed consent may not adequately reflect the potential vulnerabilities associated with such cross-border data sharing (Curtiss, 2016). Researchers must navigate these legal complexities and ensure that participants' privacy is safeguarded, regardless of geographical location (Newman et al., 2021).

## 4. Risk-Benefit Analysis

The principle of balancing risks and benefits has always been a fundamental aspect of ethical research, but the urgency of pandemic-related studies has brought this challenge into sharper focus (O'Connor et al., 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers faced immense pressure to conduct studies that could lead to life-saving interventions and treatments. This pressure sometimes resulted in expedited approval processes, where risks to participants were not thoroughly assessed or mitigated (McLeland, 2022). In some cases, the rush to gather critical data led to ethical compromises, particularly in research involving vulnerable populations. As the pandemic response continues to unfold, the challenge of evaluating risks and benefits remains, requiring careful consideration to avoid unintended harm to participants (Newman et al., 2021).

For example, certain vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, frontline workers, and immunocompromised individuals, face higher risks when participating in research. However, these groups are often crucial to studies aiming to address pandemic-related health disparities. The ethical dilemma arises when the potential benefits of research—such as new treatments or public health insights—are weighed against the risks of harm to participants (Opsal et al., 2016). Researchers must navigate this tension carefully to ensure that vulnerable populations are not unduly exposed to harm for the sake of advancing knowledge. Furthermore, the inclusion of such groups in research is essential to ensuring that health interventions are equitable and applicable to all segments of society (Grimm et al., 2020).

Another ethical concern involves the differing perceptions of risk between researchers and participants. While researchers may view certain risks as minimal or manageable, participants, especially those who have experienced trauma or loss during the pandemic, may perceive these risks as significant. This disparity in risk perception highlights the importance of involving participants in the study design and review processes, ensuring their perspectives are considered when assessing potential risks (Gelinas et al., 2017).
Engaging participants in discussions about risk can help to align their understanding with that of the researchers, fostering a sense of collaboration and trust. It also allows researchers to address concerns and adapt studies to minimize harm, ultimately ensuring a more ethical approach to research that prioritizes participant well-being (Cvitanovic et al., 2019).

## 5. Equity in Participant Recruitment

The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated long-standing disparities in research participation, and the digital shift in research methods has only exacerbated these inequalities (Oertelt-Prigione et al., 2023). Marginalized communities, such as those from low-income backgrounds, rural areas, and certain ethnic groups, often face significant barriers to participating in research. These barriers include limited access to technology, language differences, and a general mistrust of the medical and scientific communities. These challenges not only hinder the representation of diverse populations in research but also skew the results, limiting the generalizability and applicability of study findings (Gehlert & Mozersky, 2018). The lack of diverse participation in research perpetuates systemic inequities in healthcare, as interventions and policies may fail to address the specific needs of these groups (Brown et al., 2019).

The digitalization of research methods has further widened the gap in participant recruitment, as populations in remote or under-resourced areas often lack the necessary infrastructure—such as internet access or devices—to engage in online studies. This digital divide disproportionately excludes already marginalized groups from research opportunities, exacerbating the systemic inequities that exist in healthcare and other sectors. As research increasingly relies on online platforms, the exclusion of these groups leads to biased data that may not accurately reflect the realities of these communities. This lack of representation in research not only undermines the quality of the findings but also fails to account for the specific needs and challenges faced by underserved populations (Plunk et al., 2022). Additionally, cultural insensitivity in research design can further alienate potential participants. Studies that do not account for linguistic differences, cultural norms, or community values may unintentionally exclude or alienate non-dominant groups, further reinforcing inequalities (Reed & Rudman, 2023). Researchers must make a conscious effort to design inclusive studies that prioritize representation and ensure that diverse populations have an opportunity to participate. This includes providing culturally appropriate materials, offering translation services, and engaging with community leaders to build trust and promote inclusivity (Hindorff et al., 2018).

## 6. Transparency in Research Funding and Sponsorship

The pandemic created an environment of unprecedented urgency, which led to an influx of funding from various sources, including governments, private corporations, and international organizations (Hoang et al., 2021). While this funding accelerated the pace of research, it also raised significant ethical concerns regarding transparency and potential conflicts of interest. The influx of financial support, particularly from large pharmaceutical companies and other private entities, has prompted skepticism regarding the independence and objectivity of research outcomes. The public may question whether studies funded by these entities are designed and conducted in a way that favors their sponsors'

interests, even when rigorous methodologies are employed. This perception of bias can erode public trust in the research process, making it essential for researchers to be transparent about their funding sources (Muller, 2021).

One of the primary ethical concerns is the influence of sponsors on study design, implementation, and reporting. When research is funded by entities with vested interests in the outcomes, there may be subtle pressures to design studies in ways that favor the sponsor's objectives. For example, researchers might feel compelled to align their findings with the interests of their funders, which could compromise the objectivity and validity of the results. This conflict of interest is particularly troubling when the research has far-reaching implications, such as in public health or clinical medicine (Elliott, 2016). Maintaining the integrity of the research process requires researchers to resist external pressures and uphold their ethical obligation to produce unbiased, scientifically sound findings (Kretser et al., 2019).

## 7. Ethical Use of Technology in Research

The integration of advanced technologies in research, particularly artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analytics, has reshaped how studies are conducted and analyzed (Eboigbe et al., 2023). However, these technologies introduce several ethical challenges, especially regarding the fairness and transparency of the results. AI-driven systems rely on large datasets, and when these datasets are not representative or are biased, the resulting algorithms can inadvertently perpetuate these biases. For example, AI models trained on historical data that reflects inequalities in healthcare access could result in skewed predictions that disadvantage minority populations. This is particularly concerning in medical research, where AI tools may misinterpret health data, leading to disparities in diagnosis and treatment outcomes. Researchers must acknowledge these risks and actively work to reduce biases in both the data and the algorithms used (Hanna et al., 2024).

The use of big data analytics and machine learning in health research is often touted for its ability to uncover patterns and offer personalized insights (Tolsgaard et al., 2020). However, the ethical implications of such research extend beyond technical concerns to touch upon participant autonomy. Many of the technologies used in data collection—such as wearable devices, mobile health applications, and biometric monitoring tools—can capture vast amounts of sensitive information about an individual's health and behavior. While these tools can provide valuable insights into health trends and disease prevention, they can also create ethical tensions around how much control participants retain over their personal data (Wangmo et al., 2019). Participants may not fully understand how their data is being used, who has access to it, or how it might be shared or sold to third parties. This lack of transparency raises questions about the ability of participants to truly provide informed consent (Mozersky et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the complexity of digital technologies can create a divide between participants and researchers, especially when participants are not well-versed in the technicalities of data processing (Metcalf & Crawford, 2016). While researchers may ensure that privacy is maintained and data is securely stored, it is difficult for participants to fully comprehend these assurances without a detailed understanding of the technology behind them. This lack of understanding can inadvertently erode trust in the
research process and compromise participants' autonomy, as they
may feel compelled to agree to participation without fully grasping
the long-term consequences of their data's use (Filkins et al., 2016).
As technology becomes increasingly embedded in research, it is
crucial to address these ethical challenges through clear
communication, informed consent procedures, and the
development of safeguards to protect participants' rights
(Ehidiamen & Oladapo, 2024).

# 8. Mental Health Considerations for Participants

The COVID-19 pandemic has left many individuals grappling
with the psychological and emotional consequences of the global
health crisis. Increased rates of anxiety, depression, and post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have emerged in various
populations, and these issues must be carefully considered in
research (Viscuso & Mangiapane, 2020). When conducting studies
involving human participants, particularly those that require
engagement with sensitive topics, researchers must take into
account the mental health vulnerabilities of participants. For
instance, studies exploring the psychological impacts of the
pandemic or requiring participants to recall traumatic experiences
may inadvertently cause distress or exacerbate existing mental
health conditions (Sikic et al., 2019). Researchers have a
responsibility to assess whether the potential benefits of such
studies outweigh the risks of emotional harm (Blades et al., 2018).

Another significant issue arises in longitudinal studies, where
participants are asked to repeatedly engage with distressing
material or reflect on their psychological challenges over extended
periods (Scott, 2022). The emotional burden placed on participants
in these studies could lead to psychological exhaustion, which raises
ethical concerns about the potential for harm (Ashley, 2021).
Studies that require participants to revisit painful experiences, such
as grief or trauma, should be designed with safeguards in place to
monitor participants' well-being throughout the research process.
This could include periodic check-ins, mental health support, or the
option to withdraw from the study at any point without negative
consequences (Olson, 2023). Researchers must prioritize the mental
health of their participants, ensuring that their involvement in the
study does not result in lasting emotional harm (Chiumento et al.,
2017).

Furthermore, the emotional toll of research extends beyond
participants to include the researchers themselves (Batey & Szedlak,
2024). The nature of studies dealing with mental health and trauma
can place a heavy emotional burden on those conducting the
research, especially if they are required to engage directly with
participants' distressing experiences. This adds an additional layer
of ethical responsibility for institutions to ensure that researchers
receive adequate psychological support and training to handle the
emotional challenges they may face (Alexander et al., 2018). By
providing appropriate resources and fostering an environment that
promotes mental well-being, researchers can mitigate the risks of
burnout and emotional fatigue, ensuring that both participants and
research staff are protected from harm (Søvold et al., 2021).

# 9. Global Health Ethics and Cross-Cultural Sensitivity

The pandemic was a global phenomenon that affected
individuals and communities across diverse cultures, regions, and
socioeconomic groups (Ryan, 2020). As a result, global health
research must consider the ethical implications of conducting

studies in cross-cultural contexts, particularly when different
cultural perceptions and practices come into play (Broesch et al.,
2020). Ethical standards vary significantly between countries, and
what is considered acceptable in one culture may not align with
practices in another. For example, informed consent procedures
that are deemed sufficient in Western countries may not be
appropriate in other regions due to differences in cultural norms or
literacy levels (Ahmad et al., 2020). In certain societies, participants
may be more accustomed to hierarchical relationships in which
decisions are made by community leaders or healthcare
professionals, rather than by the individuals themselves. This
disparity can create challenges for researchers seeking to obtain
valid and ethical informed consent (O'Shea et al., 2019).

Moreover, cultural differences in how risk is perceived can
complicate the ethical conduct of research (Vitolla et al., 2021). In
some countries, the concept of individual autonomy may be less
emphasized than in others, with more importance placed on
communal decision-making. This can lead to misunderstandings or
mistrust when researchers from Western countries engage in
research in settings where collective interests take precedence. For
instance, some communities may view participation in medical
research as a form of solidarity with the greater good, while others
may be more skeptical due to historical mistreatment by foreign
researchers or healthcare systems (Bates et al., 2023). Such cultural
perceptions must be carefully navigated by researchers to ensure
that all participants feel respected and that their rights are upheld
in a way that is culturally appropriate (Petersen, 2017).

One of the most critical aspects of conducting multinational
research is ensuring that participants in low- and middle-income
countries (LMICs) are not exploited for the benefit of wealthier
nations. This issue of "research colonialism" is particularly pertinent
in the context of vaccine development, where certain countries
have been disproportionately burdened by the virus and its impact
(Dal-Ré et al., 2016). In these cases, researchers must work closely
with local communities to ensure that research protocols are
mutually agreed upon and that participants are not coerced or
unduly influenced (Appiah, 2021). Additionally, fair compensation
for participation and access to the benefits of the research—such as
vaccines or medical treatments—are crucial considerations for
ensuring equity in global health research (Pratt & Hyder, 2018).

# 10. Long-Term Ethical Implications of COVID-19 Studies

The massive influx of data generated during COVID-19 research
has raised important questions regarding the long-term use of
sensitive biological, genetic, and health information (Wang et al.,
2021). During the pandemic, many studies were conducted with the
understanding that the immediate focus was on public health needs,
such as developing vaccines and treatments (Schoch-Spana et al.,
2021). However, the collection of large-scale datasets often
continued beyond the pandemic's acute phase, with some
researchers seeking to repurpose this data for unrelated or
secondary studies. This secondary use of data without explicit
consent raises significant ethical concerns, particularly around
participant autonomy and the right to control personal information
(Farah et al., 2020). Many individuals may have consented to
participate in studies during the crisis under the assumption that
their data would only be used for pandemic-related research, not
for broader or unrelated studies (Seedall & Tambornino, 2024).
Moreover, the long-term storage of biological samples and data presents challenges regarding the ongoing protection of participants' privacy (Coppola et al., 2019). Research institutions may retain data for years, potentially exposing participants to risks as new technologies and methods of data analysis emerge (Mills, 2018). The idea of "data creep" becomes especially concerning when participants have not been fully informed about how their data will be used or whether it will be shared with third parties in the future (Hope, 2018). Researchers must ensure that their practices align with ethical principles of transparency, informed consent, and respect for privacy, particularly when it comes to long-term data storage and secondary use. These ethical concerns are further complicated by the fact that data may be repurposed across international borders, where varying levels of data protection regulations may apply (Parker et al., 2018).

Lastly, the repurposing of data or biological samples without clear consent undermines the trust between participants and researchers. If participants feel that their data has been used for purposes beyond what was originally communicated, it can erode public trust in scientific research and medical institutions. This distrust may have long-lasting consequences, particularly as we navigate future global health crises (Matandika et al., 2020). Researchers must be proactive in addressing these concerns, ensuring that participants are fully informed about the potential uses of their data and that mechanisms are in place to respect participants' rights to withdraw consent or request the deletion of their information (Ross et al., 2018).

# 11. Researcher Safety and Well-Being

Ethical considerations in research extend beyond the participants to include the well-being of researchers and field staff (Brittain et al., 2020). During the pandemic, conducting in-person research, particularly in healthcare settings or regions heavily impacted by the virus, placed researchers at significant risk of exposure to COVID-19 (Sohrabi et al., 2021). Many researchers found themselves in high-risk environments where they had to balance the imperative to gather valuable data with their personal health and safety concerns (Wattenbarger, 2024). Institutions had a responsibility to provide adequate protective equipment, training, and support to ensure that researchers could conduct their work without unnecessarily putting themselves at risk. These safety concerns were especially prevalent in clinical trials, where researchers were often in close contact with infected individuals or handling potentially hazardous materials (Perencevich et al., 2020).

The psychological toll of working under such stressful conditions cannot be underestimated (Hassard et al., 2018). In addition to the physical risks associated with the pandemic, researchers experienced heightened levels of stress, burnout, and anxiety (Chirico et al., 2021). The pressure to produce quick results while managing personal safety concerns added another layer of difficulty to an already challenging profession (Provan et al., 2020). Institutions must recognize the mental health risks researchers face and implement support systems to ensure that their well-being is maintained. This includes offering counseling services, providing adequate breaks and time off, and ensuring that workloads are reasonable and sustainable (Søvold et al., 2021). Addressing researcher well-being is essential not only for their health but also for the quality of the research they produce (Sarkar, 2023).

Researcher safety and mental health concerns are particularly pressing when considering the long-term effects of pandemic-related research (O'Connor et al., 2020). Researchers who conducted studies during the height of the crisis may experience lingering stress or trauma from their experiences (Silverio et al., 2022). The ethical responsibility of research institutions extends to providing ongoing support for researchers as they transition out of pandemic-related studies. This includes offering resources to address any mental health challenges faced during the pandemic and ensuring that researchers are adequately prepared for future studies (Newman et al., 2021). By prioritizing researcher safety and well-being, institutions can foster a more ethical, sustainable research environment that benefits all parties involved (Diab & Al-Azzeh, 2024).

As research methodologies continue to evolve, particularly in the post-COVID era, addressing ethical challenges has become more complex. The transition to digital platforms and the rapid integration of new technologies have introduced several key issues that require careful consideration. To maintain ethical standards and ensure that research is conducted responsibly, it is essential to develop strategies that mitigate the risks associated with these challenges.

# 12. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly altered the research landscape, revealing and amplifying a range of ethical issues in studies involving human participants. Key ethical concerns such as informed consent in a digital age, privacy and data protection, risk-benefit analysis, equity in participant recruitment, and transparency in research funding and sponsorship have come to the forefront. Additionally, challenges related to the ethical use of technology, mental health considerations for participants, global health ethics, cross-cultural sensitivity, and the long-term implications of COVID-19 studies have further complicated the ethical terrain.

In response to these challenges, it is essential to reassess and strengthen ethical frameworks to ensure that research in the post-COVID era is conducted with respect for human dignity, equity, and transparency. Ethical vigilance is required to safeguard participant welfare, particularly as research increasingly relies on digital tools and global collaboration. Furthermore, consideration of diverse cultural and social contexts remains critical as studies transcend national boundaries, highlighting the need for cross-cultural sensitivity and a commitment to global health ethics.

Through a deeper understanding of these ethical issues and the development of adaptive strategies, researchers can mitigate the risks posed by technological reliance, data security concerns, and mental health implications. By integrating ethical standards into every stage of research, from participant recruitment to data collection and analysis, the integrity of the research process can be maintained. Ensuring that research practices are ethically sound not only protects participants but also fosters trust in the scientific community and the valuable contributions research makes to global well-being.

# Acknowledgement

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers whose valuable suggestions greatly enhanced this paper.
# Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

# Author Contributions

All authors have contributed equally. They have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

# References

[1] Ahmad, S., Fazal-E-Hasan, S., & Kaleem, A. (2020). Is the meaning of ethical leadership constant across cultures? A test of cross-cultural measurement invariance. *International Journal of Manpower, 41*(8), 1323-1340.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJM-02-2019-0079/full/html

[2] Alexander, S., Pillay, R., & Smith, B. (2018). A systematic review of the experiences of vulnerable people participating in research on sensitive topics. *International Journal of Nursing Studies, 88*, 85-96.
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5807&context=ecu.workspost2013

[3] Appiah, R. (2021). Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process in rural African contexts. *BMC medical Ethics, 22*, 1-11.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12910-021-00659-7.pdf

[4] Ashley, F. (2021). Accounting for research fatigue in research ethics. *Bioethics*, 35(3), 270-276.
https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_accounting_for_research_fatigue_in_research_ethics.pdf

[5] Bates, G., Le Gouais, A., Barnfield, A., Callway, R., Hasan, M. N., Koksal, C., ... & Ayres, S. (2023). Balancing autonomy and collaboration in large-scale and disciplinary diverse teams for successful qualitative research. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22*, 16094069221144594.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069221144594

[6] Batey, J., & Szedlak, C. (2024). A sport research teams' reflections on conducting emotionally demanding research with the bereaved. *Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 16*(6), 552-566.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315579245-20/place-emotions-research-partitioning-emotion-reason-emotional-dynamics-research-relationships-liz-bondi

[7] Blades, C. A., Stritzke, W. G., Page, A. C., & Brown, J. D. (2018). The benefits and risks of asking research participants about suicide: A meta-analysis of the impact of exposure to suicide-related content. *Clinical psychology review*, 64, 1-12.
https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/files/33499098/Full_text.pdf

[8] Brittain, S., Ibbett, H., de Lange, E., Dorward, L., Hoyte, S., Marino, A., ... & Lewis, J. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. *Conservation Biology, 34*(4), 925-933.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3a925f04-1c41-447d-a194-e2995dbc9812/download_file?file_format=&safe_filename=Ethical%2Bconsiderations%2Bwhen%2Bconservation%2Bresearch%2Binvolves%2Bpeople.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article

[9] Broesch, T., Crittenden, A. N., Beheim, B. A., Blackwell, A. D., Bunce, J. A., Colleran, H., ... & Mulder, M. B. (2020). Navigating cross-cultural research: methodological and ethical considerations. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B*, 287(1935), 20201245.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2020.1245?download=true

[10] Brown, A. F., Ma, G. X., Miranda, J., Eng, E., Castille, D., Brockie, T., ... & Trinh-Shevrin, C. (2019). Structural interventions to reduce and eliminate health disparities. *American journal of public health, 109*(S1), S72-S78.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304844?download=true

[11] Chirico, F., Ferrari, G., Nucera, G., Szarpak, L., Crescenzo, P., & Ilesanmi, O. (2021). Prevalence of anxiety, depression, burnout syndrome, and mental health disorders among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews. *J Health Soc Sci, 6*(2), 209-220.
https://journalhss.com/wp-content/uploads/jhhs_62_209-220.pdf

[12] Chiumento, A., Rahman, A., Frith, L., Snider, L., & Tol, W. A. (2017). Ethical standards for mental health and psychosocial support research in emergencies: review of literature and current debates. *Globalization and health*, 13, 1-19.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12992-017-0231-y.pdf

[13] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). The ethics of educational and social research. In *Research methods in education* (pp. 111-143). Routledge.

[14] Coppola, L., Cianflone, A., Grimaldi, A. M., Incoronato, M., Bevilacqua, P., Messina, F., ... & Salvatore, M. (2019). Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions. *Journal of translational medicine*, 17, 1-18.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3.pdf

[15] Curtiss, T. (2016). Privacy Harmonization and the Developing World: The Impact of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation on Developing Economies. *Wash. JL Tech. & Arts, 12*, 95.
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=wjlta

[16] Cvitanovic, C., Howden, M., Colvin, R. M., Norström, A., Meadow, A. M., & Addison, P. F. E. (2019). Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 94, 20-31.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:da5a3f30-d85b-45a3-9904-543afb1ecf3d/download_file?file_format=pdf&hyrax_fileset_id=m0c88167f668f0322d66c83993db51515&safe_filename=ENVSCI_2018_1027_Revision%2B2_V0.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article

[17] Dal-Ré, R., Rid, A., Emanuel, E., & Wendler, D. (2016). The potential exploitation of research participants in high income countries who lack access to health care. *British journal of clinical pharmacology*, 81(5), 857-864.
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bcp.12879

[18] Danezis, G., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Hansen, M., Hoepman, J. H., Metayer, D. L., Tirtea, R., & Schiffner, S. (2015). Privacy and data protection by design-from policy to engineering. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.03726*.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03726

[19] Dhirani, L. L., Mukhtiar, N., Chowdhry, B. S., & Newe, T. (2023). Ethical dilemmas and privacy issues in emerging technologies: A review. *Sensors*, 23(3), 1151.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/3/1151/pdf

[20] Diab, J. L., & Al-Azzeh, D. (2024). Inclusive inquiry: a compassionate journey in trauma-informed qualitative research with GBV survivors from displaced communities. *Frontiers in psychology*, 15, 1399115.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1399115/pdf

[21] Dutt, B. (2023). Wellbeing amid digital risks: implications of digital risks, threats, and scams on users' wellbeing. *Media and Communication*, 11(2), 355-366.
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/viewFile/6480/3297

[22] Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., ... & Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. *International journal of information management*, 55, 102211.
https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10454/18111/Rana_IJIM_2020.pdf?sequence=5

[23] Eboigbe, E. O., Farayola, O. A., Olatoye, F. O., Nnabugwu, O. C., & Daraojimba, C. (2023). Business intelligence transformation through AI and data analytics. *Engineering Science & Technology Journal*, 4(5), 285-307. https://www.fepbl.com/index.php/estj/article/view/616/782

[24] Ehidiamen, A. J., & Oladapo, O. O. (2024). Enhancing ethical standards in clinical trials: A deep dive into regulatory compliance, informed consent, and participant rights protection frameworks. *World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences*, 20(01), 309-320. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anita-Ehidiamen/publication/385382531_Enhancing_ethical_standards_in_clinical_trials_A_deep_dive_into_regulatory_compliance_informed_consent_and_participantRights_protection_frameworks/links/674e2280f309a268c01fdcf0/Enhancing-ethical-standards-in-clinical-trials-A-deep-dive-into-regulatory-compliance-informed-consent-and-participant-rights-protection-frameworks.pdf

[25] Elliott, K. C. (2016). Standardized study designs, value judgments, and financial conflicts of interest in research. *Perspectives on Science*, 24(5), 529-551. https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article-pdf/24/5/529/1790209/posc_a_00222.pdf

[26] Farah, I., Lalli, G., Baker, D., & Schumacher, A. (2020). A global omics data sharing and analytics marketplace: case study of a rapid data COVID-19 pandemic response platform. *medRxiv*, 2020-09. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.28.20203257.ful.pdf

[27] Filkins, B. L., Kim, J. Y., Roberts, B., Armstrong, W., Miller, M. A., Hultner, M. L., ... & Steinhubl, S. R. (2016). Privacy and security in the era of digital health: what should translational researchers know and do about it?. *American journal of translational research*, 8(3), 1560. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859641/

[28] Gehlert, S., & Mozersky, J. (2018). Seeing beyond the margins: Challenges to informed inclusion of vulnerable populations in research. *Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics*, 46(1), 30-43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077979/

[29] Gelinas, L., Pierce, R., Winkler, S., Cohen, I. G., Lynch, H. F., & Bierer, B. E. (2017). Using social media as a research recruitment tool: ethical issues and recommendations. *The American journal of bioethics*, 17(3), 3-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324729/

[30] Grimm, J. J., Koehler, K., Schierenbeck, I., Saliba, I., & Lust, E. M. (2020). Safer field research in the social sciences: A guide to human and digital security in hostile environments. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5019105&publisher=FZ7200

[31] Hanna, M., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., ... & Rashidi, H. (2024). Ethical and Bias Considerations in Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning. *Modern Pathology*, 100686. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395224002667

[32] Hassard, J., Teoh, K. R., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P., & Cox, T. (2018). The cost of work-related stress to society: A systematic review. *Journal of occupational health psychology*, 23(1), 1. http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/17557/1/Manuscript_final.

[33] Hindorff, L. A., Bonham, V. L., Brody, L. C., Ginoza, M. E., Hutter, C. M., Manolio, T. A., & Green, E. D. (2018). Prioritizing diversity in human genomics research. *Nature Reviews Genetics*, 19(3), 175-185. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532668/

[34] Hoang, A. T., Nižetić, S., Olcer, A. I., Ong, H. C., Chen, W. H., Chong, C. T., ..., & Nguyen, X. P. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: Opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. *Energy Policy*, 154, 112322. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8455103/

[35] Hope, A. (2018). Creep: The growing surveillance of students' online activities. *Education and Society*, 36(1), 55-72. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jnp/es/2018/00000036/0000001/art00005

[36] Kornbluh, M. (2015). Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. *Qualitative research in psychology*, 12(4), 397-414. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14780887.2015.1021941

[37] Kretser, A., Murphy, D., Bertuzzi, S., Abraham, T., Allison, D. B., Boor, K. J., ... & Yada, R. (2019). Scientific integrity principles and best practices: recommendations from a scientific integrity consortium. *Science and Engineering Ethics*, 25, 327-355. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3.pdf

[38] Litchfield, I., Shukla, D., & Greenfield, S. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the digital divide: a rapid review. *BMJ open*, 11(10), e053440. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/10/e053440.full.pdf

[39] Martin, K. D., Borah, A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2017). Data privacy: Effects on customer and firm performance. *Journal of marketing*, 81(1), 36-58. https://aeonlaw.eu/codislo/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Journal-of-Marketing-MARTIN-et-al.-2017-1.pdf

[40] Matandika, L., Ngóngóla, R. T., Mita, K., Manda-Taylor, L., Gooding, K., Mwale, D., ... & Mfutso-Bengo, J. (2020). A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi. *BMC medical ethics*, 21, 1-10. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12910-020-00503-4.pdf

[41] McLeland, J. S. (2022). *An Investigation of Methods for Protecting Human Research Subjects at Medical Schools during the COVID-19 Pandemic* (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University). https://search.proquest.com/openview/9ec70e96d5d354d4de27acfd914b3717/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

[42] Metcalf, J., & Crawford, K. (2016). Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. *Big Data & Society*, 3(1), 2053951716650211. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053951716650211

[43] Mills, K. A. (2018). What are the threats and potentials of big data for qualitative research?. *Qualitative Research*, 18(6), 591-603. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468794117743465

[44] Monrad, J. T. (2020). Ethical considerations for epidemic vaccine trials. *Journal of medical ethics*, 46(7), 465-469. https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2020/06/23/medethics-s-2020-106235.full.pdf

[45] Mozersky, J., Parsons, M., Walsh, H., Baldwin, K., McIntosh, T., & DuBois, J. M. (2020). Research participant views regarding qualitative data sharing. *Ethics & human research*, 42(2), 13-27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418215/

[46] Müller, J., Hoberg, K., & Fransoo, J. C. (2023). Realizing supply chain agility under time pressure: Ad hoc supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Operations Management*, 69(3), 426-449. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joom.1210

[47] Muller, S. M. (2021). The dangers of performative scientism as the alternative to anti-scientific policymaking: a critical, preliminary assessment of South Africa's Covid-19 response and its consequences. *World Development*, 140, 105290. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8457686/

[48] Newman, P. A., Guta, A., & Black, T. (2021). Ethical considerations for qualitative research methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergency situations: Navigating the virtual field. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*, 20, 16094069211047823. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069211047823

[49] Newman, P. A., Guta, A., & Black, T. (2021). Ethical considerations for qualitative research methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and other
emergency situations: Navigating the virtual field. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*, 20, 16094069211047823.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069211047823

[50] Nusbaum, L., Douglas, B., Damus, K., Paasche-Orlow, M., & Estrella-Luna, N. (2017). Communicating risks and benefits in informed consent for research: a qualitative study. *Global qualitative nursing research*, 4, 2333393617732017.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2333393617732017

[51] O'Connor, D. B., Aggleton, J. P., Chakrabarti, B., Cooper, C. L., Creswell, C., Dunsmuir, S., ... & Armitage, C. J. (2020). Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science. *British Journal of Psychology*, 111(4), 603-629.
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjop.12468

[52] O'Shea, A., Boaz, A. L., & Chambers, M. (2019). A hierarchy of power: the place of patient and public involvement in healthcare service development. *Frontiers in Sociology*, 4, 38.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00038/pdf

[53] Oertelt-Prigione, S., Andersen, J. P., Squazzoni, F., Husu, L., Belloso, M. L., Lerchenmueller, M. J., ... & Bywater, M. (2023). COVID-19 impact on gender equality in research & innovation-Policy report: Independent expert report. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1832177/FULLTEXT01.pdf

[54] Olson, R. E. (2023). Emotions in human research ethics guidelines: Beyond risk, harm and pathology. *Qualitative Research*, 23(3), 526-544.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14687941211039965

[55] Opsal, T., Wolgemuth, J., Cross, J., Kaanta, T., Dickmann, E., Colomer, S., & Erdil-Moody, Z. (2016). "There Are No Known Benefits..." Considering the Risk/Benefit Ratio of Qualitative Research. *Qualitative Health Research*, 26(8), 1137-1150. https://qualethics101.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/qual-health-res-2016-opsal-1137-50.pdf

[56] Park, J. J., Mogg, R., Smith, G. E., Nakimuli-Mpungu, E., Jehan, F., Rayner, C. R., ... & Mills, E. J. (2021). How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health. *The Lancet Global Health*, 9(5), e711-e720. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X(20)30542-8.pdf

[57] Parker, D. M., Pine, S. G., & Ernst, Z. W. (2018). Privacy and informed consent for research in the age of big data. *Penn St. L. Rev.*, 123, 703.
https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get.pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/dlr123&section=26

[58] Perencevich, E. N., Diekema, D. J., & Edmond, M. B. (2020). Moving personal protective equipment into the community: face shields and containment of COVID-19. *Jama*, 323(22), 2252-2253.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2765525/jama_per_encevich_2020_vp_200089.pdf

[59] Petersen, S. (2017). Human subject review standards and procedures in international research: Critical ethical and cultural issues and recommendations. *International Perspectives in Psychology*, 6(3), 165-178. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1037/ipp000072

[60] Petrova, E., Dewing, J., & Camilleri, M. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research: Challenges from one study. *Nursing ethics*, 23(4), 442-454.
https://www.academia.edu/download/41557024/Confidentiality_in_p articipatory_researc20160125-6969-1nke5v8.pdf

[61] Plunk, A. D., Carver, A., Minggia, C., Prasanna, K., Sheehan, B. E., Herman, M., ... & McQueen-Gibson, E. (2022). Virtual engagement of under-resourced communities: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic for creating crisis-resistant research infrastructure. *Journal of clinical and translational science*, 6(1), e44.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/5E8432F52D60CEDDCD93079311987528/S2059866122003855a/pdf/div-class-title-virtual-engagement-of-under-resourced-communities-lessons-learned-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-creating-crisis-resistant-research-infrastructure-div.pdf

[62] Pool, J., Akhlaghpour, S., Fatehi, F., & Burton-Jones, A. (2024). A systematic analysis of failures in protecting personal health data: a scoping review. *International Journal of Information Management*, 74, 102719.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223001007

[63] Pratt, B., & Hyder, A. A. (2018). Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: an exploration of current practice in health systems research. *Developing World Bioethics*, 18(2), 76-90.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dewb.12136

[64] Provan, D. J., Woods, D. D., Dekker, S. W., & Rae, A. J. (2020). Safety II professionals: How resilience engineering can transform safety practice. *Reliability Engineering & System Safety*, 195, 106740.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018309864

[65] Quach, S., Thaichon, P., Martin, K. D., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Digital technologies: tensions in privacy and data. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 50(6), 1299-1323.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11747-022-00845-y.pdf

[66] Reed, M. S., & Rudman, H. (2023). Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice. *Sustainability* Science, 18(2), 967-981.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11625-022-01216-w.pdf

[67] Richards, N., & Hartzog, W. (2018). The pathologies of digital consent. *Wash. UL Rev.*, 96, 1461.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=3370433

[68] Roberts, J. K., Pavlakis, A. E., & Richards, M. P. (2021). It's more complicated than it seems: Virtual qualitative research in the COVID-19 era. *International journal of qualitative methods*, 20, 16094069211002959.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069211002959

[69] Ross, M. W., Iguchi, M. Y., & Panicker, S. (2018). Ethical aspects of data sharing and research participant protections. *American Psychologist*, 73(2), 138. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-06770-003.html

[70] Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S., & Gill, D. J. (2017). Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. *Organizational Research Methods*, 20(3), 487-517.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=2919043

[71] Ryan, J. M. (2020). COVID-19: Social consequences and cultural adaptations. In *COVID-19* (pp. 1-8). Routledge.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003142065-1/covid-19-michael-ryan

[72] Sarkar, D. (2023). Researcher Well-Being and Burnout: Understanding the Causes, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies. *International Journal of All Research Education & Scientific Methods*, 11(7), 1824-1831.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dhananjoy-Sarkar-2/publication/373120021_Researcher_Well-Being_and_Burnout_Understanding_the_Causes_Impacts_and_Mitigation_Strategies/links/64db605025837316ee11a056/Researcher-Well-Being-and-Burnout-Understanding-the-Causes-Impacts-and-Mitigation-Strategies.pdf

[73] Saunders, B., Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2015). Anonymising interview data: Challenges and compromise in practice. *Qualitative research*, 15(5), 616-632.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468794114550439

[74] Schoch-Spana, M., Brunson, E. K., Long, R., Ruth, A., Ravi, S. J., Trottochaud, M., ... & White, A. (2021). The public's role in COVID-19 vaccination: Human-centered recommendations to enhance pandemic vaccine awareness, access, and acceptance in the United States. *Vaccine*, 39(40), 6004-6012.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598529/
[75]Scott, S. (2022). 'I enjoy having someone to rant to, I feel like someone is listening to me': Exploring emotion in the use of qualitative, longitudinal diary-based methods. *International journal of qualitative methods*, 21, 16094069221074444.

[76]Seedall, C., & Tambornino, L. (2024). Research ethics and integrity in the DACH region during the COVID-19 pandemic: balancing risks and benefits under pressure. *Research Ethics*, 17470161241229207. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/17470161241229207

[77]Sikic Micanovic, L., Stelko, S., & Sakic, S. (2019). Who else needs protection? Reflecting on researcher vulnerability in sensitive research. *Societies*, 10(1), 3. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/1/3/pdf

[78]Silverio, S. A., Sheen, K. S., Bramante, A., Knighting, K., Koops, T. U., Montgomery, E., ... & Sandall, J. (2022). Sensitive, challenging, and difficult topics: Experiences and practical considerations for qualitative researchers. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*, 21, 16094069221124739. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069221124739

[79]Slupská, J., Dawson Duckworth, S. D., Ma, L., & Neff, G. (2021, May). Participatory threat modelling: Exploring paths to reconfigure cybersecurity. In *extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems* (pp. 1-6). https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a70787e2-73ab-4a2f-b6f3-3270f11ed3a9/download_file?safe_filename=3411763.3451731.pdf&type_of_work=Conference+item

[80]Sohrabi, C., Mathew, G., Franchi, T., Kerwan, A., Griffin, M., Del Mundo, J. S. C., ... & Agha, R. (2021). Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on scientific research and implications for clinical academic training—a review. *International Journal of Surgery*, 86, 57-63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919121000029

[81]Søvold, L. E., Naslund, J. A., Kousoulis, A. A., Saxena, S., Qoronfleh, M. W., Grobler, C., & Münter, L. (2021). Prioritizing the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers: an urgent global public health priority. *Frontiers in public health*, 9, 679397. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.679397/pdf

[82]Thapa, C., & Camtepe, S. (2021). Precision health data: Requirements, challenges and existing techniques for data security and privacy. *Computers in biology and medicine*, 129, 104130. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.10733

[83]Tolsgaard, M. G., Boscardin, C. K., Park, Y. S., Cuddy, M. M., & Sebok-Syer, S. S. (2020). The role of data science and machine learning in Health Professions Education: practical applications, theoretical contributions, and epistemic beliefs. *Advances in Health Sciences Education*, 25, 1057-1086. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-020-10009-8

[84]Utz, C., Degeling, M., Fahl, S., Schaub, F., & Holz, T. (2019, November). (Un) informed consent: Studying GDPR consent notices in the field. In *Proceedings of the 2019 acm sigsac conference on computer and communications security* (pp. 973-990). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3319535.3354212

[85]VandeVusse, A., Mueller, J., & Karcher, S. (2022). Qualitative data sharing: Participant understanding, motivation, and consent. *Qualitative Health Research*, 32(1), 182-191. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10497323211054058

[86]Viscuso, D. G. I., & Mangiapane, D. E. (2020). Pandemic Covid-19: Psychodynamic analysis of a global trauma. Clinical considerations pre\post Lock down. *Journal of Medical Research and Health Sciences*, 3(6). https://www.academia.edu/download/87448681/99.pdf

[87]Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garegnani, G. M. (2021). Do cultural differences impact ethical issues? Exploring the relationship between national culture and quality of code of ethics. *Journal of International Management*, 27(1), 100823.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107542532100003X

[88]Voss, W. G. (2019). Cross-border data flows, the GDPR, and data governance. *Wash. Int'l LJ*, 29, 485. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=3629348

[89]Wang, Q., Su, M., Zhang, M., & Li, R. (2021). Integrating digital technologies and public health to fight Covid-19 pandemic: key technologies, applications, challenges and outlook of digital healthcare. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 18(11), 6053. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6053/pdf

[90]Wangmo, T., Lipps, M., Kressig, R. W., & Ienca, M. (2019). Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. *BMC medical ethics*, 20, 1-11. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z.pdf

[91]Wattenbarger, J. C. (2024). *Examining Workplace Safety Through Effective Leadership Styles: A Qualitative Study of the High-Risk Private Industry* (Doctoral dissertation, California Baptist University). https://share.calbaptist.edu/bitstreams/273332cf-845b-47d6-a76d-74f03e29db67/download

Publisher's Note: IMCC stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Copyright of this article belongs to the journal and the Iligan Medical Center College. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).