Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25991457›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Professionalism dilemmas, moral distress and the healthcare student: insights from two online UK-wide questionnaire studies.

Lynn V Monrouxe, Charlotte E Rees, Ian Dennis, Stephanie E Wells

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
28.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lynn V MonrouxeInstitute of Medical Education, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Charlotte E ReesCentre for Medical Education, Medical Education Institute, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Ian DennisSchool of Psychology, Portland Square, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Stephanie E WellsCardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board · GBCardiff University · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand the prevalence of healthcare students' witnessing or participating in something that they think unethical (professionalism dilemmas) during workplace learning and examine whether differences exist in moral distress intensity resulting from these experiences according to gender and the frequency of occurrence.

designTwo cross-sectional online questionnaires of UK medical (study 1) and nursing, dentistry, physiotherapy and pharmacy students (study 2) concerning professionalism dilemmas and subsequent distress for (1) Patient dignity and safety breaches; (2) Valid consent for students' learning on patients; and (3) Negative workplace behaviours (eg, student abuse). PARTICIPANTS AND

setting2397 medical (67.4% female) and 1399 other healthcare students (81.1% female) responded. MAIN

resultsThe most commonly encountered professionalism dilemmas were: student abuse and patient dignity and safety dilemmas. Multinomial and logistic regression identified significant effects for gender and frequency of occurrence. In both studies, men were more likely to classify themselves as experiencing no distress; women were more likely to classify themselves as distressed. Two distinct patterns concerning frequency were apparent: (1) Habituation (study 1): less distress with increased exposure to dilemmas 'justified' for learning; (2) Disturbance (studies 1 and 2): more distress with increased exposure to dilemmas that could not be justified.

conclusionsTomorrow's healthcare practitioners learn within a workplace in which they frequently encounter dilemmas resulting in distress. Gender differences could be respondents acting according to gendered expectations (eg, males downplaying distress because they are expected to appear tough). Habituation to dilemmas suggests students might balance patient autonomy and right to dignity with their own needs to learn for future patient benefit. Disturbance contests the 'accepted' notion that students become less empathic over time. Future research might examine the strategies that students use to manage their distress, to understand how this impacts of issues such as burnout and/or leaving the profession.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalProfessionalismAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, MedicalFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLearningMaleMoralsPreceptorshipProfessional CompetenceStress, PsychologicalStudents, MedicalEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)ETHICS (see Medical Ethics)STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID25991457
PMCPMC4442195
OpenAlexW2112761453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.