ArticleScientific reports2026
Moral distress of primary health care workers during the global pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the prevalence and intensity of moral distress among family health workers in Istanbul during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as its association with the perceived ethical climate within family health centers. This descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in Istanbul between November 2021 and June 2022. Using Turkish versions of the "Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals" and "Hospital Ethical Climate Survey-Shortened" scales, data were collected from three districts with the highest and three with the lowest mortality rates due to infectious diseases (n = 135 each). Mortality rates were based on deaths from infectious diseases, largely reflecting COVID-19-related mortality. The sample included 270 healthcare workers (77.4% women, mean age 39.92 ± 9.19 years; 44.9% family physicians, 26.6% midwives, 25.5% nurses). Participants in high-mortality districts reported significantly higher moral distress (p < 0.05). Family physicians exhibited greater moral distress and a poorer perception of the ethical climate compared with other staff (p < 0.05). Additionally, those experiencing the highest moral distress reported the lowest ethical climate scores. The results underscore the need for interventions to prevent moral distress, particularly among family physicians, during extraordinary situations. Ethical guidelines for primary care in such contexts are anticipated to enhance healthcare worker well-being and improve patient care quality.
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.