ReviewOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2026
Reflective practice to reduce moral injury in healthcare workers.
Review in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 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
Abstract
backgroundMoral injury (MI) can arise when individuals experience events that violate their moral beliefs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MI gained attention among healthcare workers (HCWs). Reflective practice (RP) may help prevent or mitigate MI but remains underexplored. This narrative review examines existing literature on RP interventions addressing MI in HCWs.
aimsTo synthesize existing literature on RP interventions to prevent or mitigate MI in HCWs.
methodsA semi-structured literature search was conducted in July 2024 and updated in August 2025 across four databases. Twelve studies evaluating RP interventions, including three studies identifying barriers to RP, were included. Across the 12 studies, the sample size was n = 793, involving nurses and other HCWs.
resultsMost studies implemented structured workshops combining RP with psychoeducation and group discussion. Of the studies, 11 studies lacked control groups, three used pre-/post-test designs, while others relied on self-reported helpfulness. These studies provided preliminary evidence for the feasibility and perceived value of RP in addressing MI. The only study with a control group was limited by a small sample size, and the results were non-significant. Reported barriers to implementing RP included individual-level factors (e.g. lack of experience) and institutional obstacles (e.g. limited managerial support).
conclusionsFindings suggest RP holds promise as an intervention for MI in HCWs. However, the evidence base is limited by small samples and weak study designs. Further research using robust methodologies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies, is needed to evaluate RP across diverse HCW roles, including administrative staff.
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.