ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Adverse Moral Selection: Moral Injury and the Moral Composition of the Clinical Workforce.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleClinician distress has been progressively reframed over the past decade: from burnout, construed as an individual failure of resilience, to moral injury, construed as a systemic failure that betrays the practitioner's commitment to the patient. The reframing has correctly relocated responsibility from the individual to the institution, but it has stopped at the level of the injured individual and has not traced what injury does to the composition of the profession itself. AIMS AND
objectivesThis paper takes that further step, asking how the distribution of moral residue within clinical teams affects which practitioners remain in the workforce and which leave.
methodConceptual analysis drawing together three established but largely disconnected literatures: moral distress and its accumulation as moral residue, moral injury, and the normalisation of deviance. Results Felt moral residue is allocated across a clinical team not by causal contribution or culpability but by self-ascribed answerability: the practitioner who construes himself as answerable absorbs the residue, while the practitioner whose omission lay in the causal chain may register nothing. Because accumulated residue drives attrition, and because insensitivity to deviance confers persistence, the institution tends to retain its least morally responsive members and to shed its most responsive. Conscience thus behaves as a trait under negative institutional selection, degrading the moral composition of the workforce as a structural matter and independently of any individual's choices.
conclusionOn this account, interventions directed at the distress of the conscientious, absent structural change, may accelerate rather than arrest the drift. Implications for professional self-governance and for the design of clinical institutions are drawn.
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.