ArticlePloS one2026
Mapping moral injury: Development and feasibility of the Clinical Interview for Moral Injury-military version (CIMI-M).
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is currently no clinical interview to assess exposure to potentially morally injurious experiences (PMIEs) and moral injury, the potential clinical outcome associated with PMIEs. To enable a person-centered assessment of PMIEs and moral injury in military veterans, we developed a structured, non-diagnostic clinical interview to support descriptive assessment, case conceptualization, and treatment planning, and conducted an initial evaluation of its feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility.
methodThe Clinical Interview for Moral Injury-Military Version (CIMI-M) was developed through an iterative, stakeholder-informed process. Questions from existing moral injury instruments were selected, adapted and supplemented to create an interview with a descriptive, theory-driven approach. Clinicians (N = 7) and military veterans (N = 8) at two Dutch trauma centers who conducted the CIMI-M were interviewed and completed questionnaires assessing the CIMI-M's feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility. Interviews were analyzed using the General Inductive Approach for qualitative evaluation data.
resultsMean evaluation scores were 7.63 for veterans and 8.41 for clinicians (10-point scale). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts revealed that the CIMI-M helped veterans share their experiences, while clinicians found it valuable for fostering trust and planning treatment. Both groups agreed that the CIMI-M generated insightful content about PMIEs and moral injury. Based on feedback, several interview questions were revised or added.
conclusionsWe found preliminary evidence that the CIMI-M is a feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful descriptive interview. It offers a potentially valuable treatment-planning tool that complements paper-and-pencil approaches that assess PMIEs and moral injury. Further evaluation, including in non-veteran populations, is needed.
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.