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

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-12-27 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102377
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 Bremault-Phillips , Anthony Nazarov
{"title":"Measuring moral distress and moral injury: A systematic review and content analysis of existing scales","authors":"Stephanie A. Houle ,&nbsp;Natalie Ein ,&nbsp;Julia Gervasio ,&nbsp;Rachel A. Plouffe ,&nbsp;Brett T. Litz ,&nbsp;R. Nicholas Carleton ,&nbsp;Kevin T. Hansen ,&nbsp;Jenny J.W. Liu ,&nbsp;Andrea R. Ashbaugh ,&nbsp;Walter Callaghan ,&nbsp;Megan M. Thompson ,&nbsp;Bethany Easterbrook ,&nbsp;Lorraine Smith-MacDonald ,&nbsp;Sara Rodrigues ,&nbsp;Stéphanie A.H. Bélanger ,&nbsp;Katherine Bright ,&nbsp;Ruth A. Lanius ,&nbsp;Clara Baker ,&nbsp;William Younger ,&nbsp;Suzette Bremault-Phillips ,&nbsp;Anthony Nazarov","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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 (<em>n</em> = 3) or outcomes (<em>n</em> = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102377"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001356/pdfft?md5=f7a9ba62f0a5fcb2a2c9a7ca38c63343&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735823001356-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001356","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量道德困扰和道德伤害:对现有量表的系统回顾和内容分析
背景道德困扰(MD)和道德伤害(MI)是描述具有道德挑战性的压力所产生的负面影响的相关概念。尽管这些概念的临床相关性得到越来越多的支持,但测量质量方面持续存在的挑战可能会限制研究和临床进展。本研究总结了现有MD和MI量表的性质、质量和效用,并为今后的使用提供了建议。方法我们确定了描述MD或MI量表开发或验证的心理测量研究,并提取了有关方法和心理测量质量的信息。内容分析确定了每个量表测量的具体结果。结果我们审查了代表 42 个独特量表的 77 项研究。不同研究的心理测量方法质量差异很大,而且大多数研究都没有对收敛效度和发散效度进行检查。内容分析显示,大多数量表同时测量潜在道德压力源的暴露情况和结果,相对较少的量表只测量暴露情况(3 份)或结果(7 份)。使用 "MD "一词的量表通常评估一般困扰。结论结果显示了 MD 和 MI 这两个术语在研究中的应用情况。结果显示了 MD 和 MI 这两个术语在研究中的应用情况,并确定了几个适合研究和临床使用的量表。本文还就 MD 和 MI 量表的应用、开发和验证提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1