Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42120938›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Measuring moral distress in Swedish maternal and neonatal healthcare: validation of an adapted MDS‑R and development of a criterion‑based index.

Magnus Akerstrom, Karolina Linden, Emina Hadžibajramović

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Magnus AkerstromInstitute of Stress Medicine, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden. magnus.akerstrom@vgregion.se.
Karolina LindenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Emina HadžibajramovićInstitute of Stress Medicine, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a lack of methods for quantifying moral distress which limits the possibility to address this emerging challenge in practice. The aims were to investigate the content and face validity of an adapted version of the Moral Distress Scale Reversed (MDS-R) for use in Swedish maternal and neonatal health care, to develop a criterion-based index for the identification of high moral distress, and to assess its relationship with stress, burnout complaints, intention to leave and job satisfaction. The content and face validity were assessed using expert assessments (n = 10) and cognitive interviews with experienced professionals (n = 5). A global moral distress index was developed using a criterion-based approach and survey data from maternal and neonatal healthcare workers (n = 951) within the longitudinal COPE Staff cohort were used for construct validity. Results showed good content and face validity. 28% reported high moral distress which was associated with increased levels of stress, burnout complaints and intention to leave, and with decreased levels of job satisfaction (p < 0.001, respectively), indicating good construct validity. Thus, the Swedish maternal and neonatal version of the MDS-R may be used to systematically identify those at risk of adverse effects due to high moral distress, enabling early intervention and prevention.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMoralsStress, PsychologicalAdultBurnout, ProfessionalEthical DilemmasFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornJob SatisfactionMalePsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenConstruct validityContent validityCriterion-based indexFace validityMaternal and neonatal healthcare workersMoral distress scale revised (MDS-R)

Identifiers

PMID42120938
PMCPMC13168699

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.