Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33430698›Full record

ArticleNursing ethics2021

Priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

Ingrid Miljeteig, Ingeborg Forthun, Karl Ove Hufthammer, Inger Elise Engelund, Elisabeth Schanche, Margrethe Schaufel, Kristine Husøy Onarheim

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
37.2field-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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Front Line Nurses: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  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

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingeborg Forthun60518University of Bergen, Norway.
Inger Elise Engelund60498Haukeland University Hospital, Norway.
Elisabeth Schanche60518University of Bergen, Norway.
Margrethe Schaufel60498Haukeland University Hospital, Norway.
Kristine Husøy Onarheim4919University College London, UK; University of Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees' moral stress and job satisfaction.

aimDescribe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway. RESEARCH

designA cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131421).

findingsAmong the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0-10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful. DISCUSSION: By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority.

conclusionEmpirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingPsychological DistressAdultBioethicsCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesClinical ethicsethics and leadership/managementmoral distressmoral/ethical climate of organisationsorganisational ethicsprofessional ethics

Identifiers

PMID33430698
PMCPMC7879232
OpenAlexW3120286251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.