Moral distress: A concept clarification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, moral distress has been examined in the nursing literature. It is thought to occur when an individual has made a moral decision but is unable to act on it, often attributable to constraints, internal or external. Varying definitions can be found throughout the healthcare literature. This lack of cohesion has led to complications for study of the phenomenon, along with its effects to nursing practice, education and targeted policy development. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to uncover unique definitions of moral distress as found in the nursing literature and to examine the relationship between these definitions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND CONTEXT: Morse's method of concept clarification was applied given the large body of literature which includes definitions, descriptions and measurements of the concept in research. The steps include (a) conducting a literature review; (b) analysing the literature; and (c) identifying, describing, comparing, and contrasting attributes, antecedents and consequences of each category. FINDINGS: Each of the 18 included studies described constraints in their definition of moral distress, whether implied or explicitly stated. External constraints are widely described as obstacles outside of the individual, whether institutional, systemic or situational, while internal constraints are located within the individuals themselves and are described as personal limitations, failings or weakness of will. CONCLUSION: Upon reviewing these definitions, we determined that the term 'internal constraints' is problematic due to the emphasis of responsibility on the individual experiencing moral distress. We propose an alteration to 'internal characteristics' that will assume less responsibility of change from the individual to place a heavier onus on systemic and institutional constraints.
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 | 0.051 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".