Associations between self-compassion and moral injury among healthcare workers: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) can face situations that conflict with their moral beliefs, leading to moral injury, an adverse psychological consequence that was more frequent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-compassion is a potential coping mechanism for moral injury by encouraging acceptance of human limitations and suffering. Objectives This study aimed to examine the associations between self-compassion components and moral injury prevalence among HCWs in Quebec, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research design A cross-sectional study design was employed. Participants : and research context: The sample of this study consisted of HCWs and leaders from the Quebec province. Participants completed validated self-administered questionnaires assessing both positive and negative self-compassion components (self-kindness vs self-judgment; common humanity vs isolation; and mindfulness vs overidentification) and moral injury dimensions (self-oriented and other-oriented). Prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between self-compassion components and moral injury dimensions were modeled using Poison robust regressions. The models were adjusted for various covariates, including sex, age, gender, and socio-demographic and lifestyle factors. Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committee of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale in Quebec, Canada. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in the study. Additionally, permission was sought and obtained from the original authors of the tools used in this study, including the self-compassion and moral injury scales. Results The study involved 572 HCWs (60.5% nurses) and leaders. Around half of the participants (50.70%) exhibited moderate levels of self-compassion, while the prevalence of low levels of self-compassion ranged from 21.68% to 48.08% for the positive subscales and from 23.78% to 44.41% for the negative subscales. Regarding moral injury, 10.14% of participants reported moderate to high self-oriented moral injury, 29.19% reported moderate to high other-oriented moral injury, and 13.81% demonstrated moderate to high total moral injury. Higher self-compassion levels were associated with lower moral injury prevalence. HCWs with high self-compassion had a 93% lower likelihood of experiencing moral injury (PR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.03–0.19). Self-kindness demonstrated the strongest association with reduced moral injury (PR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11–0.52), followed by mindfulness (PR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18–0.75). However, common humanity did not show a statistically significant association with moral injury prevalence. Conclusion These findings suggest a potential association between self-compassion and reduced prevalence of moral injury among HCWs, highlighting promising interventions to manage moral injury during crises. Such initiatives could promote the mental wellbeing of HCWs and preventing the negative consequences of moral injury, including anxiety, depression, and burnout.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".