MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056996675 · doi:10.1177/0969733015574926

Moral distress in undergraduate nursing students

2015· review· en· W2056996675 on OpenAlexaff
Loredana Sasso, Annamaria Bagnasco, Monica Bianchi, Valentina Bressan, Franco A. Carnevale

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPsychologyDistressAngerAnxietyNursingHealth careQualitative researchSocial psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nurses and nursing students appear vulnerable to moral distress when faced with ethical dilemmas or decision-making in clinical practice. As a result, they may experience professional dissatisfaction and their relationships with patients, families, and colleagues may be compromised. The impact of moral distress may manifest as anger, feelings of guilt and frustration, a desire to give up the profession, loss of self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to describe how dilemmas and environmental, relational, and organizational factors contribute to moral distress in undergraduate student nurses during their clinical experience and professional education. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research design was a systematic literature review. METHOD: The search produced a total of 157 articles published between 2004 and 2014. These were screened with the assessment sheet designed by Hawker and colleagues. Four articles matched the search criteria (one quantitative study and three qualitative), and these were separately read and analyzed by the researchers. The process of review and analysis of the data was supervised by a colleague experienced in moral distress who provided an independent quality check. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION: Since this was a systematic review, no ethical approval was required. FINDINGS: From the analysis, it emerged that inequalities and healthcare disparities, the relationship with the mentor, and students' individual characteristics can all impact negatively on the decisions taken and the nursing care provided, generating moral distress. All these factors condition both the clinical experience and learning process, in addition to the professional development and the possible care choices of future nurses. CONCLUSION: Few studies dealt with moral distress in the setting of nurse education, and there is a knowledge gap related to this phenomenon. The results of this review underline the need for further research regarding interventions that can minimize moral distress in undergraduate nursing students.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.607
GPT teacher head0.683
Teacher spread0.076 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207