MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415760426 · doi:10.1155/jonm/5230876

Association Between Organizational Bullying, Moral Distress, and Disengagement Among Emergency Department Nurses in Ilam Hospitals: A Cross Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4415760426 on OpenAlexaff
Laya Besharaty, Alun C. Jackson, Zahra Rahmaty, Mohammad Namazi Nia, Fatemeh Bahramnezhad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryEmergency departmentAssociation (psychology)Cross-sectional studyOrganizational cultureMoral disengagementJob satisfactionNursing managementPublic hospital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is widely accepted that emergency department is an inherently high-stress environment where organizational bullying is prevalent, potentially leading to psychological harm and ethical complications. Moral distress occurs when nurses feel unable to adequately resolve ethical challenges, while moral disengagement involves mental processes that rationalize or excuse unethical actions, thereby diminishing personal responsibility. Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was carried out in 2024 across public and private hospitals in Ilam Province, a border region in western Iran. Ilam Province has a total of 11 hospitals, consisting of 9 public hospitals and 2 private hospitals. The study population comprised 266 nurses working in emergency departments, with the entire group selected via census sampling. The research instruments included the Einarsen Organizational Bullying Questionnaire, the Hamric Moral Distress Scale, and Fida's Moral Disengagement in Nursing instrument. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, examining the complex relationships among organizational bullying, moral distress, and moral disengagement. Model 4 of the PROCESS macro was employed to assess mediation effects. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, and data normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis values. To further explore the associations among the key variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. Results: = 0.2358). Conclusion: The findings of this study show that organizational bullying is strongly linked to moral anguish among emergency department nurses. Furthermore, moral distress has a significant and direct association with moral disengagement, suggesting that it may weaken ethical awareness and increase the likelihood of unethical behavior in the workplace. Furthermore, the considerable positive link between organizational bullying and moral disengagement suggests that increasing bullying behaviors may exacerbate moral disengagement among nurses. These findings highlight the necessity of adopting organizational measures to minimize bullying in healthcare settings while also improving nurses' psychological and ethical well-being. It is recommended that hospital administrators and health system policymakers develop and implement educational and supportive programs aimed at mitigating organizational bullying, bolstering moral resilience, and promoting the overall professional well-being of nurses. Implications for Nursing Management: The findings indicate that organizational bullying significantly influences moral distress and moral disengagement among nurses, highlighting the need for targeted management strategies. Nursing leaders should implement strict antibullying policies, foster ethical decision-making through training programs, and provide psychological support systems to reduce moral distress. Additionally, mentoring younger and less experienced nurses, particularly those in public hospitals and emergency departments, can help mitigate disengagement. Creating a culture of accountability, promoting ethical leadership, and ensuring open communication will enhance job satisfaction and improve patient care outcomes.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ManagementSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207