ArticleFrontiers in sociology2025
Creating moral space: How military chaplains in the Netherlands support veterans with moral injury.
Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Upholding Human Dignity as a First Principle: Preventive Moral Injury Work in NATO Chaplaincy.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- The conversing military chaplain: time allocation, task salience, and competencies among Swedish military chaplains.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The concept of moral injury has drawn attention to the role of military chaplains (MCs) in supporting veterans. While international research has explored military chaplaincy interventions, collaboration with mental health professionals, and institutional influences, longitudinal, process-oriented insights into military chaplaincy practice remain scarce, particularly in the Dutch context, which combines secularization, pluralized worldviews, and a unique institutional position of MCs. Methods: This study employs a qualitative longitudinal design, analyzing the practice of 6 Dutch MCs in their counseling work with post-active veterans over a period of 3-12 months. Data consists of detailed conversation reports from each dyad and quarterly group reflections with participating MCs. Analysis included cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, identifying both patterns in how MCs address moral injury in one-on-one meetings with veterans and how these meetings unfold over time. Results: Three interrelated dimensions characterize Dutch MCs' practice: presence - encompassing the physical setting and relational quality of encounters; their institutional position which we characterize as an embedded independent position within the military and healthcare systems; and moral reflection - referring to attuned pathways of how MCs address moral struggles. Longitudinal analysis revealed four typologies of contact development: (1) clear request and alignment, (2) emerging focus, (3) development through the relationship, and (4) minimal responsiveness with story-sharing focus. Breakthrough moments were observed primarily in types 1-3 and required sustained engagement. Discussion: The study emphasizes the moral significance of relational presence and the embedded independent position of MCs in addressing moral injury. Dutch MCs create a 'moral space' allowing veterans to explore moral concerns, re-establish self-trust, and recognize broader sociopolitical dimensions of moral injury. These findings highlight the importance of attuned, politicized, and confidential care in addressing moral injury, with implications for professional development, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the quality of veteran care.
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.