ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Linguistic and psychometric validation of a German version of the measure of moral distress for healthcare professionals (MMD-HP GER): results of a study with intensive care nurses.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMoral distress is an increasingly studied phenomenon in nursing science and ethics. It refers to the psychological discomfort experienced when an individual is prevented from acting on a course of action that they recognize as ethically correct. Nurses who work in intensive care are at high risk of experiencing moral distress. Various instruments to assess moral distress, most recently Epstein et al.'s measure of moral distress for health care professionals (MMD-HP), have been developed. At present, there is no validated German language version of the instrument for assessing moral distress in Germany. Therefore, this study aimed, at (1) translating and linguistically validating the instrument, as well as (2) psychometrically validating it among intensive care nurses in Germany.
methodsAccording to the ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) guidelines, the MMD‑HP was translated, linguistically validated, and psychometrically tested. The German version of the moral distress thermometer (MDT) and the German Nursing Workload Scale (NWS) were used to measure the construct validity of the translated instrument. Institutional ethics review boards of two universities approved the study protocols.
resultsA total of 187 questionnaires of intensive care nurses remained for analysis after listwise deletion. The mean sum‑score was 106.9 (± 62) (minimum = 3, maximum = 325; range = 0-400). Criterion validity was supported by a high positive correlation between the German version of the MMD‑HP and the validated German-language moral distress thermometer (ρ = 0.598, p = 0.001, n = 168). Factor analyses revealed a four‑factor solution with correlating factors for the German version. The instrument showed high reliability (ωH = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.88-0.93).
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that the German adaptation of the MMD-HP shows potential for measuring moral distress among intensive care nurses in Germany. In addition, its psychometric properties preliminarily support its reliability and validity in this cultural context. Further independent validation studies are needed to provide support for the proposed four-factor model.
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.