MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390277972 · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102377

Measuring moral distress and moral injury: A systematic review and content analysis of existing scales

2023· review· en· W4390277972 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie A. Houle, Natalie Ein, Julia Gervasio, Rachel A. Plouffe, Brett T. Litz, R. Nicholas Carleton, Kevin T. Hansen, Jenny J. W. Liu, Andrea R. Ashbaugh, Walter Callaghan, Megan M. Thompson, Bethany Easterbrook, Lorraine Smith‐MacDonald, Sara Rodrigues, Stéphanie A.H. Bélanger, Katherine Bright, Ruth A. Lanius, Clara Baker, William Younger, Suzette Brémault‐Phillips, Fardous Hosseiny, J. Don Richardson, Anthony Nazarov

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Review · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityRoyal Military College of CanadaDefence Research and Development CanadaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaUniversity of ReginaVeterans Affairs CanadaMount Royal UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStressorDistressScale (ratio)Relevance (law)Content validityQuality (philosophy)Clinical psychologyPsychometricsApplied psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI) are related constructs describing the negative consequences of morally challenging stressors. Despite growing support for the clinical relevance of these constructs, ongoing challenges regarding measurement quality risk limiting research and clinical advances. This study summarizes the nature, quality, and utility of existing MD and MI scales, and provides recommendations for future use. METHOD: We identified psychometric studies describing the development or validation of MD or MI scales and extracted information on methodological and psychometric qualities. Content analyses identified specific outcomes measured by each scale. RESULTS: We reviewed 77 studies representing 42 unique scales. The quality of psychometric approaches varied greatly across studies, and most failed to examine convergent and divergent validity. Content analyses indicated most scales measure exposures to potential moral stressors and outcomes together, with relatively few measuring only exposures (n = 3) or outcomes (n = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show how the terms MD and MI are applied in research. Several scales were identified as appropriate for research and clinical use. Recommendations for the application, development, and validation of MD and MI scales are provided.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0280.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.914
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology ReviewSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207