MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014145107 · doi:10.1177/0969733020906593

Moral distress: Developing strategies from experience

2020· article· en· W3014145107 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutNursingHealth careFocus groupDistressQualitative researchPsychologyIntensive careContext (archaeology)MedicineSociologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Moral distress was first described by Jameton in 1984, and has been defined as distress experienced by an individual when they are unable to carry out what they believe to be the right course of action because of real or perceived constraints on that action. This complex phenomenon has been studied extensively among healthcare providers, and intensive care professionals in particular report high levels of moral distress. This distress has been associated with provider burnout and associated consequences such as job attrition, with potential impacts on patient and family care. There is a paucity of literature exploring how middle and late career healthcare providers experience and cope with moral distress. OBJECTIVES: We explore the experience of moral distress and the strategies and resources invoked to mitigate that distress in mid- and late-career healthcare providers practicing in paediatric intensive care, in order to identify ways in which the work environment can build a culture of moral resilience. RESEARCH DESIGN: An exploratory, qualitative quality improvement project utilizing focus group and semi-structured interviews with pediatric intensive care front-line providers. PARTICIPANTS: Mid-and-later career (10 + years in practice) pediatric intensive care front line providers in a tertiary pediatric hospital. RESEARCH CONTEXT: This work focuses on paediatric intensive care providers in a single critical care unit, in order to explore the site-specific perspectives of health care providers in that context with respect to moral distress coping strategies. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was approved by the Quality Management Office at the institution; consent was obtained from participants, and no identifying data was included in this project. FINDINGS: Participants endorsed perspective-building and described strategies for positive adaptation including; active, reflective and structured supports. Participants articulated interest in enhanced and accessible formal supports. DISCUSSION: Findings in this study resonate with the current literature in healthcare provider moral distress, and exposed ways in which the work environment could support a culture of moral resilience. Avenues are described for the management and mitigation of moral distress in this setting. CONCLUSION: This exploratory work lays the groundwork for interventions that facilitate personal growth and meaning in the midst of moral crises in critical care practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.526
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.073 · 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