A reflective practice intervention to act on the moral distress of nurses providing end-of-life care on acute care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Nurses providing end-of-life care in acute care units often suffer from moral distress. Reflective practice (RP) may enable these nurses to realise desirable practice and then decrease their moral distress. AIMS:: This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of an RP intervention on moral distress. METHODS:: This pilot study has a one group pre-test/post-test design. Nurses working in acute care units were recruited. An RP intervention was tested that included three 45-75-minute group sessions using the Johns' model for structured reflection (2006) . RESULTS:: Most nurse participants (16/19) completed the intervention and noticed changes in their practice (13/16). The results did not show a significant difference (3.97 points, p=0.62) in the mean of the pre- and post-intervention moral distress. CONCLUSION:: The RP intervention seemed feasible and acceptable to participants. Other studies are needed to demonstrate the effects of RP on the moral distress of nurses.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".