Symbiotic Nursing: An Introduction (101)

After reading this chapter you will be able to

1. Explain where the word symbiosis comes from and what it means in biology.
2. Describe how the word moved into psychology, human ecology, computing, management and nursing.
3. State a working definition of symbiotic nursing and its five defining attributes.
4. Distinguish symbiosis from partnership, collaboration, synergy, dyad and dependency.
5. Classify a nursing relationship by partner type and by outcome framing.
6. Read the nursing literature on symbiosis critically and identify what is missing.

1. Introduction: when a biology word enters the ward

1.1 A puzzle to start with

Picture three scenes. In a hospice, a nurse and a dying patient trade small kindnesses that make each of them feel better about the day. In a university, a junior faculty member gets help with her first grant while her mentor gains a co-author for a stalled project. In a neonatal unit, a pulse oximeter is redesigned so that it stops sounding false alarms, and nurses can trust it again. The authors who studied these scenes all reached for the same word: symbiosis (Bosque, 1995; Li, 2004; Wheeler et al., 2008).

The word is attractive. It suggests that two different parties need each other and are better off together. Yet it is also slippery. In biology, where the word was born, symbiosis does not mean that everyone wins. A tapeworm living in a human gut is a symbiont too (Paracer & Ahmadjian, 2000). When nursing writers say “symbiotic” they almost always mean “good for both”, but they rarely say so explicitly, and they rarely check. This chapter starts from that puzzle. What exactly do nurses mean when they call a relationship symbiotic, and is the idea strong enough to guide practice, education and management?

1.2 What this chapter is built on

The chapter follows the Introduction 101 approach. It assumes no prior knowledge, builds the topic step by step from simple to sophisticated, and grounds every claim in a transparent body of literature that the reader can check. The literature comes from a Web of Science Core Collection topic search that combined the terms symbiotic, symbiosis or symbiotically with nurs*, “nursing care” or “nurse-patient relationship*”, and excluded meeting abstracts, letters, corrections, book reviews, notes, editorial material, book chapters and proceedings papers. The search returned 495 records published between 1980 and 2026 (Appendix A gives the method).

The first lesson of this corpus is a lesson about words. Only 45 of the 495 records, about 9%, use symbiosis in a nursing sense (Figure 1). The truncated term nurs* also matches nursery, which in plant science means a seedling nursery and in marine biology a nursery habitat; nurse plant, a shrub that shelters seedlings; nurse cell, a cell that feeds an egg; nurse bee; nurse shark; and nursing in the sense of breastfeeding. These meanings account for 414 records, most of them studies of mycorrhizal fungi or nitrogen-fixing bacteria living symbiotically with tree seedlings in nurseries. A further 36 records concern human health but use the word in a different sense or treat nursing only in passing; they are kept as a boundary set and used in Section 5.

1.3 How to read this chapter

Section 2 lays the building blocks: what symbiosis means in biology and how the word travelled into other fields. Section 3 tells the short history of the word in nursing. Sections 4 to 6 do the conceptual work: a definition, a schema, a comparison with neighbouring concepts and a typology. Section 7 reviews what the 45 studies actually say, organised by type of partnership. Section 8 introduces a maturity ladder that shows how far the concept has developed. Section 9 offers a critical reading, and Section 10 turns to implications for practice, education and health management. A companion interactive 3D presentation follows the same structure and can be used for teaching.

2. Building blocks: symbiosis before nursing

2.1 Living together: the biological core

The German botanist Anton de Bary introduced the term in a lecture published in 1879 as Die Erscheinung der Symbiose, the phenomenon of symbiosis (de Bary, 1879). He used it for the living together of unlike organisms. His classic example was the lichen, which looks like a single plant but is a fungus and an alga (or a cyanobacterium) living as one body: the alga makes sugars through photosynthesis, and the fungus provides shelter, water and minerals. Neither partner disappears into the other, and each keeps its own identity.

De Bary’s definition was broad on purpose. It did not say whether the partners gained or lost. Later biologists sorted symbiotic associations by their outcome (Douglas, 2010; Paracer & Ahmadjian, 2000). In mutualism both partners benefit, as in the lichen or in the bacteria that fix nitrogen inside the root nodules of legumes. In commensalism one partner benefits and the other is neither helped nor harmed. In parasitism one partner benefits at the other’s expense. Biologists also distinguish obligate symbiosis, where a partner cannot survive alone, from facultative symbiosis, where it can but does better together. And they note that the same pair can move along the spectrum as conditions change: a gut microbe can be helpful in one host and harmful in another.

The most dramatic idea in this field is endosymbiosis. Lynn Margulis argued that the mitochondria in our cells, and the chloroplasts in plant cells, descend from free-living bacteria that were taken in by another cell and became permanent partners (Margulis, 1981). Symbiosis, in this view, is not a curiosity but a motor of evolution. This is one reason why the word carries such positive weight when it is borrowed by other fields.

2.2 The word travels

Long before nursing used it, symbiosis had already moved into the human sciences. Four journeys matter for this chapter (Table 1).

Human ecology. The sociologist Amos Hawley described communities as webs of interdependence (Hawley, 1950). He distinguished symbiotic interdependence between units that are different and complement each other (a hospital and a supplier, a nurse and a physician) from commensalistic interdependence between units that are similar and compete for or share the same resources (two hospitals in one city). This is a useful distinction for health management, and it is still largely ignored in the nursing literature.

Psychology. Margaret Mahler and her colleagues used “symbiosis” for an early phase in which the infant experiences itself and its mother as a single unit, before the long process of separation and individuation (Mahler et al., 1975). Here symbiosis means fusion, the opposite of de Bary’s two distinct partners. Echoes of this meaning appear in the corpus, for example in the “symbiotic maternal-fetal dyad” that a nursing diagnosis seeks to protect (Mendes et al., 2024).

Computing. J. C. R. Licklider’s 1960 paper “Man-computer symbiosis” imagined humans and computers working as partners, each doing what it does best (Licklider, 1960). The phrase “human-machine symbiosis” now runs through the nursing literature on artificial intelligence (Kang et al., 2025; Mohanasundari et al., 2023).

Management and policy. A body of Chinese scholarship uses symbiosis theory to analyse organisations in terms of symbiotic units, symbiotic models, a symbiotic environment and symbiotic interfaces. Two studies in the boundary set apply it to health care. One models a smart elderly care ecosystem, including the relationship between hospitals and nursing homes, with logistic growth equations (Zhang et al., 2021). The other codes Chinese policy documents and concludes that the relationship between large hospitals and primary care is moving from parasitism towards commensalism, with mutualism still to be achieved (Zhao et al., 2025). Both sit outside nursing, and the second is the only health study in the corpus that uses the full biological spectrum explicitly.

3. A short history of the term in nursing

Figure 2 places the main milestones on a single line. The left part shows the word’s travel across disciplines; the right part shows its life inside nursing, drawn from the corpus and its sources.

3.1 Early debates (1979 to 1999)

The oldest nursing use traced by the corpus is a 1979 paper by Cox, which asked whether nursing and sociology could develop a symbiotic relationship (Cox, 1979, as cited in Aranda & Law, 2007). That question, whether a young academic discipline should borrow from an older one, set the tone for the first period: symbiosis was a word for relations between bodies of knowledge and between institutions. In 1995, Bosque described the design of a neonatal pulse oximeter alarm based on fuzzy logic and called the link between nurses’ intuition and the machine “the symbiosis between nurse and machine”; her central point was that nurses must be involved in developing the technology for which they are responsible (Bosque, 1995). Brown and Piper asked whether nursing’s acceptance of an English public health strategy was “schism or symbiosis” and argued for a more critical, holistic stance (Brown & Piper, 1997). Mitchell and Fletcher made the case for a nurse-led research ethics committee working in symbiotic partnership with medical committees (Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998).

3.2 Questioning and describing (2000 to 2009)

The second period brought both scepticism and the first empirical use. Mackintosh questioned the assumption that care and nursing are interchangeable and symbiotic concepts, arguing that the assumption conflicts with what nurses actually do (Mackintosh, 2000). Whitehead proposed that health education and health promotion be viewed as symbiotic paradigms rather than rivals (Whitehead, 2003). The most cited empirical contribution came from Li, who analysed the talk of palliative care nurses in two hospices and a general hospital and coined the term “symbiotic niceness” for the co-production of niceness by nurses and patients (Li, 2004). Griffiths and Jasper found that military nurses resolved the tension between caring and soldiering through a “symbiotic relationship of carer and warrior” (Griffiths & Jasper, 2008), and Wheeler and colleagues used “Symbiosis” as the title of a course model in which undergraduate research students advanced faculty research (Wheeler et al., 2008).

3.3 Partnerships and education (2010 to 2019)

In the third period the word spread through educational and interprofessional writing. It described the relation between narrative research and psychotherapy (Warne & McAndrew, 2010), the relationship between students and faculty in which incivility develops (Robertson, 2012), partnerships between a nursing school and an engineering faculty (Kelly et al., 2017), between a nursing programme and local schools (McGahee et al., 2018), and the collaborative practice of nurses and doctors managing paediatric medication (Borrott et al., 2017). Dalton and colleagues placed enrolled nurse education inside a “symbiotic relationship model” linking nursing knowledge, workforce performance and health system function (Dalton et al., 2018).

3.4 Acceleration (2020 to 2026)

Twenty-seven of the 45 included studies, 60%, were published from 2020 onwards. Three new streams appear. The first is technology: artificial intelligence, transhumanism and generative AI in nursing research are discussed as forms of human-machine symbiosis (Kang et al., 2025; Locsin et al., 2021; Mohanasundari et al., 2023; Tanioka et al., 2021). The second is organisational: servant leadership studies treat a “symbiotic diversity setting” as a measurable condition (Manzoor et al., 2026), and a large health system describes how it moved “from silos to symbiosis” after acquiring a nursing college (Mosier et al., 2026). The third returns to the bedside, with studies of friendship on mental health wards (Hamada, 2025) and advocacy in intensive care (Pires & Gomes, 2026). This growth mirrors the growth of the corpus as a whole, but the share of nursing uses has remained small throughout.

4. Defining symbiotic nursing

4.1 Four ways the literature uses the word

None of the 45 studies offers a formal definition of symbiotic nursing. Reading them side by side, four families of use emerge.

• Symbiosis as a relational quality. The word describes how two people relate: reciprocal, mutually rewarding, co-produced. Li’s symbiotic niceness and Hamada’s shared meaning-making between nurses and patients are examples (Hamada, 2025; Li, 2004).
• Symbiosis as a structural arrangement. The word describes formal links between organisations or roles that are designed to benefit both sides: joint appointments, academic-practice integration, community partnerships (Martin et al., 2020; Mosier et al., 2026; Pfister et al., 2021).
• Symbiosis as human-technology coupling. The word describes nurses and machines working together, with the human contribution preserved (Bosque, 1995; Kang et al., 2025; Mohanasundari et al., 2023).
• Symbiosis as conceptual interdependence. The word describes two ideas that need each other: vulnerability and resilience, health education and health promotion, sensemaking and job crafting (East et al., 2020; Sahay & Dwyer, 2021; Whitehead, 2003).

4.2 A working definition

4.3 Five defining attributes

Following the logic of concept analysis in nursing (Walker & Avant, 2019), the definition can be broken into attributes that must all be present, together with antecedents that make a symbiotic relationship possible and consequences that follow from it (Figure 3).

1. Distinct partners. Each partner keeps its own identity, role and goals. A relationship that dissolves one partner into the other is fusion, not symbiosis in de Bary’s sense.
2. Close and durable association. The partners share a setting or a structure over time. A single helpful encounter is not symbiosis.
3. Reciprocal exchange. Something flows in both directions: knowledge, labour, recognition, data, emotional support, legitimacy.
4. Mutual adaptation. Each partner changes its behaviour because of the other. Mentors report learning from their mentees (Graber et al., 2026; Liu, 2026); nurses adapt how they use technology, and the technology is redesigned around nurses (Bosque, 1995).
5. An outcome open to evaluation. Whether the partners gain, lose or are unaffected is an empirical question. This attribute is the one most often missing from the nursing literature.

Three antecedents recur in the corpus. Partners have complementary needs and capacities (a food bank needs volunteers; nursing students need community placements (Martin et al., 2020)); they share a setting or are brought into proximity (a locked ward, a hospice team, an integrated health system (Hamada, 2025; Mosier et al., 2026; Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2011)); and some structure holds the association in place, such as a joint appointment contract, shared governance or a training programme (Graber et al., 2026; Mosier et al., 2026; Pfister et al., 2021).

5. Telling symbiosis apart from neighbouring concepts

Nursing already has a rich vocabulary for good relationships. Symbiosis earns a place only if it adds something. Table 2 compares it with its closest neighbours.

Three distinctions matter most. First, symbiosis is about the form of an association, while synergy is about its result; a hospital-school partnership can be symbiotic in form and still fail to produce added value. Second, symbiosis requires distinct partners. The “silos to symbiosis” story of a health system that acquired a nursing college shows the tension: as the college becomes fully integrated into the system, it is no longer obvious that two partners remain (Mosier et al., 2026). Third, symbiosis is neutral about power. Kenny and Duckett, in the boundary set, describe a symbiotic relationship between government, medicine and community in rural Australia that gave medicine power and dominance (Kenny & Duckett, 2004). Mutual dependence and mutual benefit are not the same thing as equality.

The boundary set also shows where the word stops being useful. When a study calls the relation between information and motivation in cancer screening “symbiotic”, or uses a “symbiotic empirical ethics” approach as a method label (Seidlein et al., 2019; Wells et al., 2021; Woolfall et al., 2013), the word adds colour rather than meaning. These uses are not wrong, but they are not about symbiotic relationships in nursing, and they were excluded from the synthesis.

6. Types of symbiotic relationship in nursing

Biology classifies symbioses by the partners involved and by the outcome. The same two axes work well for nursing.

6.1 By partner type

• Person-person in care (6 studies): nurse and patient, care staff and resident, and the maternal-fetal dyad that nursing care protects (Anderson & Blair, 2020; Hamada, 2025; Li, 2004; Mendes et al., 2024; Pires & Gomes, 2026; Zuo & Yang, 2024).
• Person-person in professional life (9 studies): mentor and mentee, preceptor and student, student and faculty, nurse and doctor, members of a hospice team (Borrott et al., 2017; Christensen & Wagner, 2022; Graber et al., 2026; Liu, 2026; Lynch & Masani, 2024; Pate et al., 2025; Robertson, 2012; Wheeler et al., 2008; Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2011).
• Organisation-organisation (12 studies): schools of nursing and health systems, schools and community agencies, professional associations and their members, nurse-led and medical ethics committees (Dalton et al., 2018; Dube et al., 2020; Kelly et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2017; Lambert et al., 2020; Manzoor et al., 2026; Martin et al., 2020; McGahee et al., 2018; Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998; Mosier et al., 2026; Pfister et al., 2021; Wilson, 2022).
• Human-technology (8 studies): nurses and alarms, AI systems, generative AI, information models and coaching apps (Bosque, 1995; Fine et al., 2023; Kang et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2017; Locsin et al., 2021; Mohanasundari et al., 2023; Obro et al., 2023; Tanioka et al., 2021).
• Idea-idea (10 studies): pairs of concepts, paradigms, roles or processes that are said to depend on each other (Aranda & Law, 2007; Brown & Piper, 1997; East et al., 2020; Griffiths & Jasper, 2008; Koszalinski et al., 2026; Mackintosh, 2000; Moya Delia et al., 2020; Sahay & Dwyer, 2021; Warne & McAndrew, 2010; Whitehead, 2003).

6.2 By outcome framing

Each study was also coded for how it frames the outcome of the relationship (Figure 4). Forty-one of 45 frame it as mutualistic. Two are ambivalent: Mackintosh questions whether care and nursing really form a symbiotic pair (Mackintosh, 2000), and Zuo and Yang describe disabled older people in Chinese care institutions as “maintaining symbiosis in conflict”, concealing their emotions to keep institutional life harmonious (Zuo & Yang, 2024). Two frame the symbiosis as harmful: Robertson’s review describes student incivility as the product of a symbiotic relationship between students and faculty (Robertson, 2012), and Lambert and colleagues show how the symbiotic relationship between higher education and the health care sector can reproduce vertical and horizontal abuse in a simulation laboratory (Lambert et al., 2020). No study frames a nursing relationship as commensal.

6.3 By dependence

The obligate-facultative distinction is almost never discussed, but it is useful. Some nursing symbioses are close to obligate: a patient in intensive care cannot do without the nurse, and the advocacy-adjustment dyad described by Pires and Gomes depends on both partners (Pires & Gomes, 2026). Others are clearly facultative: a nursing programme can run without a food bank partnership, and the food bank without student volunteers (Martin et al., 2020). Obligate relationships carry more risk of exploitation because exit is costly, which is one reason why the fifth attribute (an evaluated outcome) matters.

7. What the literature says

This section synthesises the 45 included studies by partner type. Figure 6 shows how the five types are distributed over time. Idea-idea uses dominate the early period; organisational and technological uses dominate after 2020.

7.1 Person-person in care

The foundational study is Li’s analysis of palliative care nurses’ talk (Li, 2004). Symbiotic niceness, in her account, is the mutual advantage that nurses and dying patients produce when they co-perform niceness in conversation. Both sides display personal assets, and the result is an impression of nice patients, nice professionals and nice organisations. The concept is sociologically sharp because it shows that the benefit is not only emotional: niceness also maintains social order and serves professional and organisational aims. A later study of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings extended the idea to the team, showing how nurses and medical directors use criticism and “atrocity stories” in the performance of symbiotic niceness as emotional labour (Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2011).

Recent studies extend the bedside line. Hamada argues, from practice on locked child and youth mental health units, that nurses and patients may involve each other symbiotically in shared meaning-making, and that forms of friendship are possible despite professional hierarchy (Hamada, 2025). Pires and Gomes developed a grounded theory of advocacy in a postoperative intensive care unit in which older cancer patients and specialist nurses form an “Advocacy-Adjustment Dyad”, a symbiotic interplay of patient coping and nurse support; their key finding is that advocacy is a process of mutual interaction, not a one-way function of the nurse (Pires & Gomes, 2026). In residential dementia care, Anderson and Blair describe the staff-resident relationship as symbiotic and show over six months that the quality of care predicts residents’ quality of life (Anderson & Blair, 2020). Zuo and Yang’s grounded theory, already mentioned, adds the darker side: symbiosis in conflict (Zuo & Yang, 2024).

7.2 Person-person in professional life

Mentoring is the clearest case of mutualism in the corpus. Wheeler and colleagues designed an undergraduate research course in which students joined faculty projects, giving students hands-on research experience and helping faculty move their research forward; within a year the pairs were presenting at conferences (Wheeler et al., 2008). Liu interviewed 16 nursing faculty mentors across the United States and identified “fostering symbiotic relationships: it is bidirectional learning” as one of four themes (Liu, 2026). Graber and colleagues found bi-directional mentorship as a theme in a peer mentoring programme in psychiatric mental health nursing research (Graber et al., 2026), and Pate and colleagues framed the preceptor role in clinical nurse specialist education as a symbiotic relationship with students (Pate et al., 2025).

Interprofessional studies use the word more cautiously. Borrott and colleagues observed medication communication in an Australian paediatric hospital and concluded that collaboration between nurses and doctors involved “complex, symbiotic relationships”, shaped by hierarchy, staffing and language styles (Borrott et al., 2017). Lynch and Masani describe the partnership of nephrology nurse managers and medical directors as symbiotic (Lynch & Masani, 2024). Christensen and Wagner found “humanistic symbiosis” among the categories that explain why nurses return to disaster relief again and again (Christensen & Wagner, 2022). Robertson’s review of incivility in nursing education shows the same mechanism working in the wrong direction (Robertson, 2012).

7.3 Organisation-organisation

This is the largest group and the most practical. Schools of nursing describe symbiotic partnerships with local schools and the Special Olympics, where students performed physical examinations for athletes (McGahee et al., 2018); with a regional food bank, where students gained flexible community placements and the food bank gained workers (Martin et al., 2020); and with an engineering faculty, whose interns provided simulation technical support in exchange for workplace experience (Kelly et al., 2017). Joint academic appointments between a college of nursing and a medical college are presented as requiring “a symbiotic relationship for all parties” (Pfister et al., 2021). At the largest scale, Mosier and colleagues describe how the largest health system in the United States acquired a nursing college in 2020 and evolved from a traditional academic-practice partnership into an integrated model with shared governance, infrastructure and evaluation (Mosier et al., 2026).

Other studies in this group concern professional structures. Wilson notes the symbiotic relationship between nurse practitioner organisations and their members (Wilson, 2022). Mitchell and Fletcher argue for keeping small nurse-led ethics committees alongside medical ones (Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998). Kelly and colleagues built renal nurse education for the care of Aboriginal patients in South Australia on “symbiotic clinical education and mutually reinforcing relationships” (Kelly et al., 2016), and Dube and colleagues studied shared learning between Australian and Balinese midwifery students on an international placement (Dube et al., 2020). Manzoor and colleagues provide the only quantitative test in the corpus: in a multilevel study of nursing staff in Pakistan, a “symbiotic diversity setting”, a workplace in which employees from diverse backgrounds collaborate through mutual support, strengthened the links between servant leadership and perceived member status and interpersonal coordination (Manzoor et al., 2026).

7.4 Human-technology

The technology stream begins with Bosque’s fuzzy-logic alarm (Bosque, 1995) and returns forcefully after 2020. Mohanasundari and colleagues, the most cited study in the corpus, conclude that the symbiosis between AI and human qualities is vital and that AI should complement rather than replace nursing’s empathetic skills (Mohanasundari et al., 2023). Kang and colleagues interviewed 27 Chinese nurse researchers about generative AI and organised their themes as a “human-machine symbiosis journey”, in which the benefits depend on humans leveraging the machine’s strengths and overcoming its shortcomings (Kang et al., 2025). Two philosophical papers from the transhumanism debate describe technology as an expression of the symbiosis between human beings and technology, building on Locsin’s view of technological competency as caring (Locsin, 2005; Locsin et al., 2021; Tanioka et al., 2021).

A quieter line concerns data. Fine and colleagues draw on the essential, symbiotic relationship between nursing practice and resource use encoded in the Clinical Care Classification System, and show that nursing intervention codes detected pandemic resource demand earlier than other data (Fine et al., 2023). Lee and colleagues demonstrate the symbiosis of laboratory results and standard nursing statements in detecting adverse drug reaction signals from electronic health records (Lee et al., 2017). In a prostate cancer self-management programme, mHealth and nurse health coaching were seen to act symbiotically, though nurse coaches experienced conflicting role expectations when integrating the app (Obro et al., 2023).

7.5 Idea-idea

Ten studies use symbiosis to describe a relationship between concepts rather than people. Some are critical interventions: Brown and Piper on public health strategy (Brown & Piper, 1997), Mackintosh on care and nursing (Mackintosh, 2000) and Aranda and Law on the long debate about sociology in the nursing curriculum (Aranda & Law, 2007). Others are integrative: health education and health promotion as symbiotic paradigms (Whitehead, 2003); vulnerability and resilience as interdependent, since resilience comes into play only in situations of vulnerability (East et al., 2020); sensemaking and job crafting among US nurses during COVID-19 (Sahay & Dwyer, 2021); narrative inquiry and psychotherapy in mental health nursing research (Warne & McAndrew, 2010); the nursing process and evidence-based nursing (Moya Delia et al., 2020); and Ray’s Bureaucratic Caring Theory, described as a synthesis of spiritual-ethical caring and bureaucracy into “a broader meaning of truth or symbiosis” (Koszalinski et al., 2026; Ray, 1989). Griffiths and Jasper’s warrior nurse belongs here too: the symbiosis is between two roles carried by one person (Griffiths & Jasper, 2008).

8. From word to theory: a maturity ladder

How developed is the concept? Each included study was placed on a five-rung ladder according to the work the word does in it (Figure 7).

• L1 Passing label (17 studies). The word appears once, usually in the background or conclusion, to describe a partnership. Examples include professional association membership, joint appointments and AI integration (Mohanasundari et al., 2023; Pfister et al., 2021; Wilson, 2022).
• L2 Argued descriptor (16 studies). The paper argues that a relationship is symbiotic and builds part of its case on that claim, as with vulnerability and resilience or carer and warrior (East et al., 2020; Griffiths & Jasper, 2008).
• L3 Empirical category (7 studies). Symbiosis emerges from data as a theme, category or core process: symbiotic niceness, humanistic symbiosis, the human-machine symbiosis journey, bidirectional mentoring, symbiosis in conflict and the advocacy-adjustment dyad (Christensen & Wagner, 2022; Kang et al., 2025; Li, 2004; Liu, 2026; Pires & Gomes, 2026; Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2011; Zuo & Yang, 2024).
• L4 Model or design (4 studies). A course, device or organisational model is built on the idea (Bosque, 1995; Dalton et al., 2018; Mosier et al., 2026; Wheeler et al., 2008).
• L5 Measured construct (1 study). Symbiosis, in the form of a symbiotic diversity setting, is measured and tested as a moderator (Manzoor et al., 2026).

The shape of the ladder is the main finding of this chapter. Seventy-three per cent of the studies (33 of 45) stay on the first two rungs. The concept is popular, but it is still mostly a metaphor. Only seven studies derive it from data, and only one measures it. Moving up the ladder is the task of the research agenda in Section 10.

9. A critical reading

9.1 The mutualism bias

Nursing has borrowed the word symbiosis but left behind most of its biological meaning. In biology, the interest of symbiosis lies precisely in the fact that the same association can be mutualistic, commensal or parasitic, and that it can shift between these states. In the nursing corpus, 41 of 45 studies assume mutual benefit and none considers the commensal middle. This matters in practice. A clinical placement that benefits a school but adds workload for ward nurses, a mentoring scheme that benefits the mentee at the cost of the mentor’s time, or an AI tool that saves managers money but adds documentation for nurses are all symbiotic associations whose outcome may not be mutual. Calling them symbiotic without asking who gains can hide the costs.

9.2 Metaphor without measurement

The ladder in Section 8 shows that the concept has rarely been operationalised. There is no validated instrument for the symbiotic quality of a nurse-patient relationship, a mentoring dyad or an academic-practice partnership. The one quantitative study measures a related workplace condition rather than a relationship (Manzoor et al., 2026). Without measures, it is impossible to know whether symbiotic relationships produce better outcomes than other forms of partnership.

9.3 Homonyms and search noise

The search strategy illustrates a methodological lesson for bibliometric work. A truncated term such as nurs* is efficient in a health database but produces massive noise in a multidisciplinary one. Excluding nurser*, “nurse plant*”, “nurse cell*” and similar phrases, or limiting the search to nursing and health care categories, would remove most of the noise. Conversely, the strategy misses studies that describe symbiotic relationships in nursing without using the exact words, or that use them only in the full text.

9.4 Concentration

Seventeen of the included studies have a first author based in the United States, eight in Australia and seven in England: 71% from three English-speaking countries. Most studies are single-site descriptions, discussion papers or small qualitative studies, and citation counts are modest (median 5 citations). The concept has not yet been tested across health systems or cultures, even though one of the most interesting studies suggests that cultural context (here, a Confucian view of friendship and hierarchy) shapes what symbiosis means on the ward (Hamada, 2025).

9.5 Limits of this chapter

The evidence base is one database, searched on title, abstract and keywords, and screened by a single coder. The distinction between core and relevant studies, the partner types and the ladder positions involve judgement and should be checked by a second coder before formal publication. The chapter describes how the word is used; it does not measure the effects of symbiotic relationships.

10. Implications

10.1 For clinical practice

The concept invites nurses to see care as co-produced. Patients contribute to the relationship: their coping, their stories and their kindness shape the nurse’s work as much as the nurse shapes theirs (Li, 2004; Pires & Gomes, 2026). The five-question test in Box 2 can be used in reflective practice or clinical supervision to ask whether a relationship that feels mutual really is, especially where the patient cannot leave, as in intensive care, locked wards or long-term care (Hamada, 2025; Pires & Gomes, 2026; Zuo & Yang, 2024).

10.2 For nursing education

Mentoring, precepting and community partnerships are the domains where symbiosis is best documented. Programme designers can use the attributes to build in reciprocity deliberately: make explicit what each partner gives and receives, schedule time for both, and evaluate outcomes for both sides, not only for students (Liu, 2026; Martin et al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2008). The negative cases, incivility and the reproduction of abuse, show that symbiotic ties between education and practice can also transmit harmful cultures (Lambert et al., 2020; Robertson, 2012).

10.3 For health managers and policy

For managers, the organisational stream is the most relevant. Academic-practice integration, joint appointments and shared governance are presented as symbiotic, but integration can erase the distinctness that makes symbiosis valuable (Mosier et al., 2026; Pfister et al., 2021). Hawley’s distinction between symbiotic (complementary) and commensalistic (competitive) interdependence offers a simple diagnostic for partnership portfolios (Hawley, 1950). Managers introducing AI should ask the symbiosis question in its full form: what does each partner contribute, and who carries the cost (Kang et al., 2025; Mohanasundari et al., 2023)? The policy studies in the boundary set show how the full spectrum, from parasitism to mutualism, can be used to evaluate the relationship between large hospitals and primary care (Zhao et al., 2025); nursing management could borrow that discipline.

10.4 A research agenda

1. Conduct a formal concept analysis of symbiosis in nursing using the five attributes proposed here as a starting point (Walker & Avant, 2019).
2. Develop and validate instruments for the symbiotic quality of nurse-patient, mentoring and academic-practice relationships, including items on costs as well as benefits.
3. Study commensal and parasitic forms explicitly: placements, mentoring schemes or technologies in which one partner gains while the other does not.
4. Compare symbiosis with partnership, collaboration and synergy in the same study to test whether the concept adds explanatory value.
5. Test the concept across cultures and health systems, including Türkiye and other non-English-speaking settings.
6. Repeat the bibliometric search with a refined strategy and full-text sources to capture uses missed here.

11. Conclusion

Symbiosis entered nursing as an attractive metaphor for relationships that benefit both sides. The literature shows that the word now describes nurse-patient care, mentoring, organisational partnerships, human-machine work and pairs of ideas, and that its use has accelerated since 2020. Yet the concept remains mostly a label. Nursing has kept the warmth of the word and lost its precision: the recognition that living together can help, ignore or harm. Restoring that precision, by naming the partners, tracing the exchange and evaluating the outcome, is what would turn symbiotic nursing from a figure of speech into a concept that practice, education and management can use.

Key terms

Symbiosis

Close and durable living together of different organisms or partners, whatever the outcome.

Mutualism

A symbiosis in which both partners benefit.

Commensalism

A symbiosis in which one partner benefits and the other is unaffected.

Parasitism

A symbiosis in which one partner benefits at the other’s expense.

Obligate and facultative

A partner that cannot survive without the other (obligate) or can, but does better with it (facultative).

Endosymbiosis

One organism living inside another; the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

Symbiotic niceness

Li’s term for the mutual advantage produced when nurses and patients co-perform niceness.

Human-machine symbiosis

A division of labour in which human and machine each contribute what they do best.

Symbiotic diversity setting

A workplace in which employees from diverse backgrounds collaborate through mutual support; measured as a moderator by Manzoor et al. (2026).

Synbiotic

A nutrition term for a combination of probiotics and prebiotics; a homonym of symbiotic.

Discussion questions

1. Choose a relationship from your own practice that you would call symbiotic. Apply the five questions in Box 2. Does it pass?
2. Can a nurse-patient relationship be commensal? Describe an example and what it would mean for care.
3. Mosier and colleagues describe a move “from silos to symbiosis”. At what point does integration end symbiosis?
4. Is human-machine symbiosis in nursing mutualistic for nurses, for patients and for managers in the same way?
5. Why do you think 41 of 45 studies assume mutual benefit? What would change if researchers stopped assuming it?

Appendix A. Method

Search. Web of Science Core Collection, topic field (title, abstract, author keywords and Keywords Plus): TS=((“symbiotic” OR “symbiosis” OR “symbiotically”) AND (nurs* OR “nursing care” OR “nurse-patient relationship*”)), excluding the document types meeting abstract, letter, correction, book review, note, editorial material, book chapter and proceedings paper. The export contained 495 records (466 articles, 25 reviews, 4 early access articles; 1980 to 2026).

Screening. Rules flagged ecological and biological meanings of nurs* (nursery, nurse plant or effect, nurse cell, nurse bee, nurse shark, nursing as lactation) and microbiome studies; 116 records with a human nursing context were read individually. Records were coded A (core: symbiosis in the title, keywords or main finding and used in a nursing sense), B (relevant: nursing context, symbiosis secondary), C (peripheral: health context but a different sense of the word or nursing only in passing) and D (excluded). The result was 17 A, 28 B, 36 C and 414 D records.

Coding. The 45 A and B records were coded for partner type (five categories), outcome framing (mutualistic, ambivalent, harmful) and ladder rung (L1 to L5). First-author country was taken from the first address. All coding was done by one coder and is available in the screening workbook.

References

References marked with an asterisk are records from the Web of Science corpus analysed in this chapter. The 1979 paper by Cox is cited through Aranda and Law (2007).

1. *Anderson, K., & Blair, A. (2020). Why we need to care about the care: A longitudinal study linking the quality of residential dementia care to residents’ quality of life. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 91, Article 104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104226
2. *Aranda, K., & Law, K. (2007). Tales of sociology and the nursing curriculum: Revisiting the debates. Nurse Education Today, 27(6), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.08.017
3. de Bary, A. (1879). Die Erscheinung der Symbiose [The phenomenon of symbiosis]. Karl J. Trübner.
4. *Borrott, N., Kinney, S., Newall, F., Williams, A., Cranswick, N., Wong, I., & Manias, E. (2017). Medication communication between nurses and doctors for paediatric acute care: An ethnographic study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(13-14), 1978–1992. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13606
5. *Bosque, E. M. (1995). Symbiosis of nurse and machine through fuzzy logic: Improved specificity of a neonatal pulse oximeter alarm. Advances in Nursing Science, 18(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199512000-00008
6. *Brown, P., & Piper, S. (1997). Nursing and the health of the nation: Schism or symbiosis? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(2), 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025297.x
7. *Christensen, S. E., & Wagner, L. (2022). Disaster relief nurses: Exploring the impetus to respond to multiple efforts. Nursing Science Quarterly, 35(2), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/08943184211070575
8. Curley, M. A. Q. (1998). Patient-nurse synergy: Optimizing patients’ outcomes. American Journal of Critical Care, 7(1), 64–72.
9. *Dalton, L., Campbell, S., & Bull, R. (2018). Preparing the nursing workforce for the next era: Re-classifying and reframing enrolled nursing knowledge. Collegian, 25(2), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.06.001
10. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 116–131.
11. Douglas, A. E. (2010). The symbiotic habit. Princeton University Press.
12. *Dube, M., Geraghty, S., Bull, A., Arini, K. N., Adnyani, S., Noviani, N. W., Budiani, N. N., Mahayati, N. M. D., Utarini, G. A. E., & Sriasih, N. G. K. (2020). Shared learning on an international clinical placement: Promoting symbiotic midwifery practice knowledge. Women and Birth, 33(6), E558–E566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.11.006
13. *East, L., Heaslip, V., & Jackson, D. (2020). The symbiotic relationship of vulnerability and resilience in nursing. Contemporary Nurse, 56(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2019.1670709
14. *Fine, S., Chaudhri, A., Englebright, J., & Roberts, W. D. (2023). Nursing process, derived from the clinical care classification system components, as an earlier indicator of nursing care during a pandemic. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 173, Article 104954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104954
15. Gallant, M. H., Beaulieu, M. C., & Carnevale, F. A. (2002). Partnership: An analysis of the concept within the nurse-client relationship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(2), 149–157.
16. *Graber, J., Saylor, J., Frapp, S., & Jackson, A. (2026). Mentoring undergraduate nursing students in psychiatric mental health research: A pilot training initiative. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 60, Article 152025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2025.152025
17. *Griffiths, L., & Jasper, M. (2008). Warrior nurse: Duality and complementarity of role in the operational environment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(1), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04469.x
18. *Hamada, D. (2025). Bored together: The friendship of filling time in child and youth mental health nursing. Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, 2025, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/jah.v2025Y2025.81745
19. Hawley, A. H. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. Ronald Press.
20. *Kang, R., Xuan, Z., Tong, L., Wang, Y., Jin, S., & Xiao, Q. (2025). Nurse researchers’ experiences and perceptions of generative AI: Qualitative semistructured interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, Article e65523. https://doi.org/10.2196/65523
21. *Kelly, J., Wilden, C., Chamney, M., Martin, G., Herman, K., & Russell, C. (2016). Improving cultural and clinical competency and safety of renal nurse education. Renal Society of Australasia Journal, 12(3), 106–112.
22. *Kelly, M. A., Hayes, C., & Abdipranoto, A. (2017). Need a simulation technician? Try your university’s engineering internship program. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(6), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2017.02.005
23. *Kenny, A., & Duckett, S. (2004). A question of place: Medical power in rural Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 58(6), 1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00278-8
24. *Koszalinski, R., Wilson, C., & Schaefer, A. M. (2026). Underpinning human health outcomes of harmful algal bloom exposure research: An analysis of the relationship and applicability of the bureaucratic caring theory. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 40(1), Article e70199. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.70199
25. *Lambert, K., Francis, K., & Tori, K. (2020). A critical ethnographic study using Bourdieu’s social practice framework to explain vertical and horizontal abuse (VHA) within an undergraduate nurse simulation environment. Collegian, 27(5), 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2019.12.006
26. *Lee, S., Choi, J., Kim, H. S., Kim, G. J., Lee, K. H., Park, C. H., Han, J., Yoon, D., Park, M. Y., Park, R. W., Kang, H. R., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Standard-based comprehensive detection of adverse drug reaction signals from nursing statements and laboratory results in electronic health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw168
27. *Li, S. (2004). “Symbiotic niceness”: Constructing a therapeutic relationship in psychosocial palliative care. Social Science & Medicine, 58(12), 2571–2583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.006
28. Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1(1), 4–11.
29. *Liu, W. (2026). Cultivating faculty growth: Mentors’ experiences of supporting tenure-track faculty in nursing academia. Journal of Professional Nursing, 64, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2026.03.007
30. Locsin, R. C. (2005). Technological competency as caring in nursing: A model for practice. Sigma Theta Tau International.
31. *Locsin, R. C., Pepito, J. A., Juntasopeepun, P., & Constantino, R. E. (2021). Transcending human frailties with technological enhancements and replacements: Transhumanist perspective in nursing and healthcare. Nursing Inquiry, 28(2), Article e12391. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12391
32. *Lynch, F., & Masani, N. (2024). Acute nephrology nurse managers and medical directors: The roles and relationships to produce quality in the unit. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 51(3), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.37526/1526-744X.2024.51.3.221
33. *Mackintosh, C. (2000). Is there a place for care within nursing? International Journal of Nursing Studies, 37(4), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00011-0
34. Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. Basic Books.
35. *Manzoor, S. R., Adnan, A., Zada, M., Contreras-Barraza, N., & Salazar-Sepulveda, G. (2026). Understanding the dynamics: Nexus between servant leadership, symbiotic diversity, identity related process and personnel behaviors. BMC Nursing, 25(1), Article 641. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05066-0
36. Margulis, L. (1981). Symbiosis in cell evolution. W. H. Freeman.
37. *Martin, J. M., Tremblay, B., & Karlowicz, K. (2020). Community health education re-envisioned: The value of partnership with the local food bank. Journal of Professional Nursing, 36(5), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.01.009
38. *McGahee, T., Bravo, M., Simmons, L., & Reid, T. (2018). Nursing students and service learning research from a symbiotic community partnership with local schools and Special Olympics. Nurse Educator, 43(4), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000445
39. *Mendes, R. C. M. G., Morais, S. C. R. V., Pontes, C. M., Frazao, C. M. F. Q., Franca, M. S., Lopes, M. V. O., Silva, G. P., Mangueira, S. O., & Linhares, F. M. P. (2024). Clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis risk for disturbed maternal-fetal dyad in high-risk pregnancy: A case-control study. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 35(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12444
40. *Mitchell, T., & Fletcher, I. (1998). Stating the case for nursing research ethics committees: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 18(2), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(98)80017-8
41. *Mohanasundari, S. K., Kalpana, M., Madhusudhan, U., Vasanthkumar, K., Rani, B., Singh, R., Vashishtha, N., & Bhatia, V. (2023). Can artificial intelligence replace the unique nursing role? Cureus, 15(12), Article e51150. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.51150
42. *Mosier, S., Ortelli, T., & Alper, C. (2026). Silos to symbiosis: Academic-practice integration in nursing education. Nurse Leader, 24(5), Article 102754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2026.102754
43. *Moya Delia, P., Robles Zaida, C., & Herrera Isoled, C. (2020). From nursing based nursing: Patterns of knowledge: Looking at his narrative: Phenomenon of care. Cultura de los Cuidados, 24(58), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.14198/cuid.2020.58.17
44. *Obro, L. F., Osther, P. J. S., Ammentorp, J., Pihl, G. T., Krogh, P. G., & Handberg, C. (2023). Healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives of facilitating self-management support for patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer via mHealth and health coaching. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), Article 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010346
45. Paracer, S., & Ahmadjian, V. (2000). Symbiosis: An introduction to biological associations (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
46. *Pate, K., Linder, J. M., Passwater, C., Harrelson, S., & Cochran, A. (2025). Exploration of clinical nurse specialist preceptors’ perception of competencies. Journal of Professional Nursing, 58, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.02.008
47. Peplau, H. E. (1952). Interpersonal relations in nursing. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
48. *Pfister, J. K., Kuester, J. C., McDermott, K., Talbert, L., & Schindler, C. A. (2021). Living the Manatt report: Advancing the future of nursing through joint academic appointments. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(2), 422–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.05.004
49. *Pires, S. M., & Gomes, I. (2026). Cancer patient advocacy in the postoperative intensive care unit: The experience of nurses and the voice of older adult patients. Healthcare, 14(12), Article 1618. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14121618
50. Ray, M. A. (1989). The theory of bureaucratic caring for nursing practice in the organizational culture. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 13(2), 31–42.
51. *Robertson, J. E. (2012). Can’t we all just get along? A primer on student incivility in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(1), 21–26.
52. *Sahay, S., & Dwyer, M. (2021). Emergent organizing in crisis: US nurses’ sensemaking and job crafting during COVID-19. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(4), 546–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211034170
53. *Seidlein, A. H., Buchholz, I., Buchholz, M., & Salloch, S. (2019). Relationships and burden: An empirical-ethical investigation of lived experience in home nursing arrangements. Bioethics, 33(4), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12586
54. *Sevillano-Jimenez, A., Molina-Recio, G., Garcia-Mellado, J. A., Garcia-Rodriguez, M., Molina-Luque, R., & Romero-Saldana, M. (2022). Efficacy of nutrition education for the increase of symbiotic intake on nutritional and metabolic status in schizophrenic spectrum disorders: A two-arm protocol. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, Article 912783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.912783
55. *Sevillano-Jimenez, A., Molina-Recio, G., Garcia-Mellado, J. A., Molina-Luque, R., & Romero-Saldana, M. (2024). Psychopathological and cardiometabolic efficacy of a nutritional education intervention based on symbiotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: Two-arm randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Psychiatry, 38(4), Article 100262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpsy.2024.100262
56. *Sevillano-Jimenez, A., Romero-Saldana, M., Garcia-Rodriguez, M., Molina-Luque, R., & Molina-Recio, G. (2022). Nutritional impact and eating pattern changes in schizophrenic spectrum disorders after health education program on symbiotic dietary modulation offered by specialised psychiatric nursing: Two-arm randomised clinical trial. Nutrients, 14(24), Article 5388. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14245388
57. *Tanioka, R., Betriana, F., & Locsin, R. C. (2021). Treatise on the influence of theism, transhumanism, and posthumanism on nursing and rehabilitation healthcare practice. Nursing Philosophy, 22(3), Article e12350. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12350
58. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2019). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (6th ed.). Pearson.
59. *Warne, T., & McAndrew, S. (2010). Re-searching for therapy: The ethics of using what we are skilled in. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(6), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01545.x
60. *Wells, A., Allen-Brown, V., Alam, N., Skulski, C., Jackson, A. L., & Herzog, T. J. (2021). The importance of information, motivation, and behavioral skills (IMB): Healthcare provider perspectives on improving adherence to cervical cancer screening among at-risk women. Public Health in Practice, 2, Article 100079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100079
61. *Wheeler, E. C., Hardie, T., Schell, K., & Plowfield, L. (2008). Symbiosis: Undergraduate research mentoring and faculty scholarship in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 56(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2007.09.001
62. *Whitehead, D. (2003). Health promotion and health education viewed as symbiotic paradigms: Bridging the theory and practice gap between them. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12(6), 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00804.x
63. *Wilson, K. P. (2022). Membership matters! A toolkit strategy. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 34(7), 869–871. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000739
64. *Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Oliver, D. P., Demiris, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Sharing atrocity stories in hospice: A study of niceness message strategies in interdisciplinary team meetings. Progress in Palliative Care, 19(4), 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743291X11Y.0000000011
65. *Woolfall, K., Frith, L., Gamble, C., & Young, B. (2013). How experience makes a difference: Practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Medical Ethics, 14, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-45
66. *Zhang, C., Liang, C., Zhang, C., & Ma, Y. (2021). Symbiosis evolution model and behavior of multiple resource agents in the smart elderly care service ecosystem. Symmetry, 13(4), Article 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040570
67. *Zhao, L., Du, J., Liu, W., Xu, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2025). How to strengthen primary health care? An exploratory study on the policy of vertical integration of high-quality medical resources based on symbiosis theory. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, Article 1578712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1578712
68. *Zuo, Y., & Yang, G. (2024). Maintaining symbiosis in conflict: The quality of life of disabled elderly individuals in Chinese elderly care institutions. A grounded theory study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 19(1), Article 2397845. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2024.2397845