ArticleBMJ open2026
NHS healthcare worker experiences of moral injury: a follow-up qualitative study in England using reflexive thematic analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMoral injuries (MIs) may result from individuals being exposed to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). PMIEs have been a feature of work within much of the National Health Service (NHS) for many years, and the understanding of MI is now more commonplace, having been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, understanding of how such events affect workers over the long term is lacking.
objectiveTo understand the development of healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences of PMIEs over a period of 3 years. DESIGN AND
participantsWe carried out follow-up semistructured qualitative interviews with 15 NHS staff who were previously interviewed on the same topic in 2021. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following an inductive approach.
resultsThree main themes and six subthemes were identified: (1) internal context and subjective experiences, (1.i) control in a rigid system, (1.ii) psychosocial dynamics, (2) external context and the moral cost of culture, (2.i) organisational culture, (2.ii) sources of MI, (3) responses to PMIEs, (3.i) maladaptive responses, (3.ii) adaptive responses. Key issues identified included perceptions of insufficient control over their work and work environment, low psychological safety and perceived misunderstanding of the value of their work from patients and colleagues, leading to a challenging organisational culture. We found that in the 3 years between the interviews many staff reported developing 'secondary' feelings of betrayal as a result of perceived ongoing governmental neglect of recognition for HCWs' sacrifices during the pandemic and a lack of acknowledgement of governmental mistakes made in the acute period.
conclusionFindings show an interplay between individual and organisational factors that HCWs faced while working in the NHS, underlining the need for wide-ranging intervention strategies. Since the HCWs' original interviews in 2021, a secondary betrayal has developed, emphasising the need for interventions that can restore trust in the system.
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.