Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38935754›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Triggers and factors associated with moral distress and moral injury in health and social care workers: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

Emily S Beadle, Agnieszka Walecka, Amy V Sangam, Jessica Moorhouse, Matthew Winter, Helen Munro Wild, Daksha Trivedi, Annalisa Casarin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Predictors of Moral Distress Among Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Emily S BeadleDepartment of Psychology, Sport and Geography, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2050-9923
Agnieszka WaleckaIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Amy V SangamIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Jessica MoorhouseIntensive Care Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3825-1986
Matthew WinterDepartment of Psychology, Sport and Geography, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-5590-9427
Helen Munro WildDepartment of Psychology, Sport and Geography, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Daksha TrivediCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, School of Health and Social Work, The University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7572-4113
Annalisa CasarinDepartment of Psychology, Sport and Geography, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9972-9701

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAt some point in their career, many healthcare workers will experience psychological distress associated with being unable to take morally or ethically correct action, as it aligns with their own values; a phenomenon known as moral distress. Similarly, there are increasing reports of healthcare workers experiencing long-term mental and psychological pain, alongside internal dissonance, known as moral injury. This review examined the triggers and factors associated with moral distress and injury in Health and Social Care Workers (HSCW) employed across a range of clinical settings with the aim of understanding how to mitigate the effects of moral distress and identify potential preventative interventions.

methodsA systematic review was conducted and reported according to recommendations from Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were conducted and updated regularly until January 2024 on 2 main databases (CENTRAL, PubMed) and three specialist databases (Scopus, CINAHL, PsycArticles), alongside hand searches of study registration databases and other systematic reviews reference lists. Eligible studies included a HSCW sample, explored moral distress/injury as a main aim, and were written in English or Italian. Verbatim quotes were extracted, and article quality was assessed via the CASP toolkit. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns and arrange codes into themes. Specific factors like culture and diversity were explored, and the effects of exceptional circumstances like the pandemic.

resultsFifty-one reports of 49 studies were included in the review. Causes and triggers were categorised under three domains: individual, social, and organisational. At the individual level, patients' care options, professionals' beliefs, locus of control, task planning, and the ability to make decisions based on experience, were indicated as elements that can cause or trigger moral distress. In addition, and relevant to the CoVID-19 pandemic, was use/access to personal protection resources. The social or relational factors were linked to the responsibility for advocating for and communication with patients and families, and professionals own support network. At organisational levels, hierarchy, regulations, support, workload, culture, and resources (staff and equipment) were identified as elements that can affect professionals' moral comfort. Patients' care, morals/beliefs/standards, advocacy role and culture of context were the most referenced elements. Data on cultural differences and diversity were not sufficient to make assumptions. Lack of resources and rapid policy changes have emerged as key triggers related to the pandemic. This suggests that those responsible for policy decisions should be mindful of the potential impact on staff of sudden and top-down change.

conclusionThis review indicates that causes and triggers of moral injury are multifactorial and largely influenced by the context and constraints within which professionals work. Moral distress is linked to the duty and responsibility of care, and professionals' disposition to prioritise the wellbeing of patients. If the organisational values and regulations are in contrast with individuals' beliefs, repercussions on professionals' wellbeing and retention are to be expected. Organisational strategies to mitigate against moral distress, or the longer-term sequalae of moral injury, should address the individual, social, and organisational elements identified in this review.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMoralsCOVID-19HumansPsychological DistressQualitative ResearchSocial WorkersStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID38935754
PMCPMC11210881

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.