Moral injury among western healthcare missionaries: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Moral injury among healthcare missionaries leads to negative consequences for the individual, healthcare team, patients, and sending agencies. Conflicting values in clinical care, culture, and spirituality provide unique potentially morally injurious experiences. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the phenomenon of moral injury among western healthcare missionaries to develop effective support and treatment strategies. Methods A qualitative interview guide was developed based on the existing literature on moral injury. Twenty-one key informant interviews were completed by two former healthcare missionaries. Participants were based in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe healthcare mission settings. Questions were based on clinical, cultural, and spiritual domains of potential ethical and moral conflicts. Protective factors were also explored based on one’s faith and spiritual practices. Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two analysts. The team reviewed the codes and determined themes from across the three domains. Results Seven themes emerged from the interviews ranging from morally injurious experiences with cultural leadership practices and unfamiliar clinical care experiences to guilt over practicing outside of one’s scope of practice and addressing suffering alongside God’s sovereignty. The themes led to the development of an injury/growth pathway as a potential model for helping healthcare missionaries describe and move through potentially morally injurious experiences. Conclusion The themes allow for healthcare missionary sending agencies to develop strategies, training, and support systems for teams preparing to enter the mission field and for individuals already in the field. Recommendations for growing through potentially morally injurious experiences are suggested to guide practice and support for missionaries in the field. The growth values and strategies could inform the development of a screening tool to assess moral injury among healthcare missionaries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".