This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Definition of discomfort
Discomfort is considered less serious than harm in the National Statement's risk framework. Research or evaluation in which the only foreseeable risk is no greater than discomfort is low risk research, and is eligible for a proportionate lower risk review pathway rather than full committee review (NS Chapter 2.1; NS 5.1.10-5.1.12).
Discomfort can involve physical or psychological impacts. The National Statement's examples include minor side effects of medication in clinical contexts, discomfort related to non-invasive examinations or tests such as measuring blood pressure, and mild anxiety associated with an interview (NS Chapter 2.1).
The discomfort/harm boundary
The key question is whether a participant's reactions are likely to remain within the range of mild, transient discomfort, or whether they might exceed this and become distress. Where a participant's reactions might reasonably exceed discomfort and become distress, this should be viewed as a potential for harm (NS Chapter 2.1), which elevates the project beyond low risk and requires review by a full Human Research Ethics Committee (NS 5.1.11).
The National Statement does not set out a precise test for where discomfort ends and distress begins; this always involves the exercise of judgement (NS Chapter 2.1). Factors that can push discomfort toward distress include the sensitivity of the topic; the vulnerability of the participant population; the nature of the research/evaluation setting; and the potential for re-traumatisation. A topic that would cause mild discomfort in a general population survey may cause significant distress in a sample of people with lived experience of the issue being discussed. See Harm vs discomfort for a fuller discussion of this boundary and how reviewers approach it.
Discomfort in applied research
In evaluation, social research, and market research, discomfort is the most frequently encountered risk category. Common examples include mild anxiety when answering questions about personal beliefs, values, or experiences; feeling tired after a long interview or focus group; or mild unease when a topic is discussed without nuance. See Common risks in evaluation, market research, and social research for how these risks typically present across sectors.
Discomfort is distinct from burden and inconvenience, which are not risks at all under the National Statement and are assessed separately. See Risk of inconvenience for that distinction.
Managing discomfort
Even where discomfort is the only foreseeable risk, researchers should implement strategies to minimise it. These include clear participant information about what the research/evaluation involves and the right to withdraw at any time; appropriate debriefing procedures; referral information for participants who experience unexpected distress; and sensitive data handling. Where sensitive topics are involved, trauma-informed approaches to design and facilitation reduce the likelihood that discomfort will tip into distress; see Iris Ethics' Trauma-informed Evaluation resource for a practical safety protocol covering setting up for safety, identifying distress, responding to distress and disclosure, and wrapping up.
A project assessed as involving only discomfort still requires ethics review; it is not exempt. See Lower risk vs full HREC review for how the lower risk pathway operates, and Risk assessment checklist for a step-by-step approach to identifying and documenting foreseeable risks.
Consent and information for discomfort-only projects
Even where a project is assessed as involving only discomfort, participants must still be given enough information to decide whether to take part, including a realistic description of what participation involves and why it might cause unease; participation that is voluntary and based on sufficient information requires an adequate understanding of the purpose, methods, demands, risks, and potential benefits of the research or evaluation (NS 2.2.2). Understating a foreseeable discomfort in a participant information sheet, for example describing a survey on financial hardship as a routine service-satisfaction survey, undermines both the consent process and the risk assessment itself. Participants who understand what to expect are better placed to manage their own reactions and to exercise their right to withdraw.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 24 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.