ArticleBMC nursing2025
The level of moral sensitivity among nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spiritual Integrity as a Mediator Between Workload and Burnout: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Physicians in Türkiye.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Moderating effects of interprofessional collaboration on the relationship between moral sensitivity and job satisfaction among nursing assistants: A cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Burnout in Transition: A Qualitative Study of Nursing Interns' Experiences and Implications for Clinical Management.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Moral sensitivity and professional quality of life in EMS personnel: a cross-sectional multicenter study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNurses, the largest frontline healthcare group in the world, experience a high incidence of moral distress. Enhancing moral sensitivity (MS) can effectively alleviate this distress. However, MS levels among nurses have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the level of MS among nurses and provide evidence-based insights to improve their moral practices.
methodsThis review searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese Medical Journal Full Text Database, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey, from inception to December 31, 2024. Two reviewers (Ting Zhao and Shi Chen) independently screened the literature and extracted data. Their quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were analyzed using Stata software (version 17.0) to synthesize the mean scores of the moral sensitivity questionnaire (MSQ). Subgroup and meta-regression analysis were performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results.
resultsA total of 99 studies involving 29,387 nurses were included. The pooled mean score for MS was 4.49 [95% CI (4.29, 4.70)], indicating a moderate level. Meta-regression revealed the assessment instrument, country, and department as potential sources of heterogeneity. The mean scores by country were as follows: China (5.22), Korea (4.82), Iran (4.44), and Turkey (3.28). The scores for the different assessment instruments varied, with the MSQ-revised version (5.46) having the highest scores.
conclusionNurses demonstrated moderate MS levels, indicating opportunities for further improvement. This review offers useful insights for nurse managers and educators in shaping strategies to improve moral training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.