Exploring health promotion practitioners’ experiences of moral distress in Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces moral distress - the experience of painful feelings due to institutional constraints on personal moral action - as a significant issue for the international health promotion workforce. Our exploratory study of practitioners' experiences of health promotion in Australia and Canada during 2009-2010 indicated that practitioners who work in upstream policy- and systems-level health promotion are affected by experiences of moral distress. Health promotion practitioners at all levels of the health promotion continuum also described themselves as being engaged in a minority practice within a larger dominant system that does not always value health promotion. We argue that health promotion practitioners are vulnerable to moral distress due to the values-driven and political nature of the practice, the emphasis on systems change and the inherent complexity and diversity of the practice. This vulnerability to moral distress poses significant challenges to both workers and organisations and the communities they seek to benefit. We propose that further research should be undertaken to fully identify the causes and symptoms of moral distress in health promotion. Extensive existing research on moral distress in nursing provides ample resources to conduct such research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".