ReviewBritish medical bulletin2026
Moral injury in healthcare workers: causes & interventions.
Review in British medical bulletin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Workforce mental health as health security infrastructure: protecting emergency response capacity during public health emergencies.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMoral injury (MI), characterized by psychological distress from morally transgressive events, has been predominantly studied in military personnel but has gained increased attention in healthcare workers (HCWs) since the COVID-19 pandemic. SOURCES OF DATA: In this review, we narratively synthesize literature on the causes, risks, consequences, and interventions of MI in HCWs. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: There is consensus that the COVID-19 pandemic presented HCWs with unique challenges such as fear of infection and patients dying without family, which increased the risk of MI in HCWs. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Broader healthcare experiences, not unique to a pandemic, are less well understood. In this review, we discuss evidence of such experiences including restrictive practices in psychiatric settings and experiences of discrimination. GROWING POINTS: Recent studies have highlighted the importance of addressing MI through organizational change, training, and peer support initiatives. Emerging evidence also underscores the need to consider broader systemic factors, such as workplace culture and leadership, in mitigating MI. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to explore in more detail risk factors for MI in HCWs. Additionally, there is a need for robust evaluations of interventions to prevent and treat MI and related disorders, including randomized controlled trials. Investigating the morally injurious effects of systemic issues like understaffing is particularly urgent as the field evolves beyond pandemic-specific challenges.
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.