Sheila Frankfurt O'Brien,Isabelle Baptista,Philip R Szeszko
{"title":"提高道德伤害概念的清晰度。","authors":"Sheila Frankfurt O'Brien,Isabelle Baptista,Philip R Szeszko","doi":"10.1159/000540030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe construct of \"moral injury\" is used widely in the research literature and media to broadly describe the impact of events involving perceived violations of one's sense of right and wrong (herein referred to as \"potentially morally injurious events\" [PMIEs]).\r\n\r\nSUMMARY\r\nIn this theoretical review, we provided a brief overview of the \"moral injury\" construct and its limitations including the lack of consensus-drawn boundaries and operational definitions to guide hypothesis-driven research. We discussed whether this construct can be reliably distinguished from established psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs and the inherent challenges in separating or classifying the impact of high-magnitude stressful life events that likely form the majority of PMIEs. Assessments that purportedly measure \"moral injury\" are reviewed and limitations are discussed such as shared measurement variance with established psychological instruments.\r\n\r\nKEY MESSAGES\r\nWe identified conceptual strategies for investigating behavioral and neurobiological features of PMIEs that could be used to inform the field of traumatic stress. We concluded that the construct of \"moral injury\" may provide an interpretive framework for positing why someone may be beset by guilt, shame, and/or rage whereas existing psychiatric diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression provide comprehensive descriptions regarding what someone might experience following extremely stressful events. We proposed directions to better clarify the boundaries of \"moral injury\" versus established psychiatric categories that could be used to enhance the conceptualization and assessment of this construct.","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing Conceptual Clarity regarding the Construct of Moral Injury.\",\"authors\":\"Sheila Frankfurt O'Brien,Isabelle Baptista,Philip R Szeszko\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000540030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThe construct of \\\"moral injury\\\" is used widely in the research literature and media to broadly describe the impact of events involving perceived violations of one's sense of right and wrong (herein referred to as \\\"potentially morally injurious events\\\" [PMIEs]).\\r\\n\\r\\nSUMMARY\\r\\nIn this theoretical review, we provided a brief overview of the \\\"moral injury\\\" construct and its limitations including the lack of consensus-drawn boundaries and operational definitions to guide hypothesis-driven research. We discussed whether this construct can be reliably distinguished from established psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs and the inherent challenges in separating or classifying the impact of high-magnitude stressful life events that likely form the majority of PMIEs. Assessments that purportedly measure \\\"moral injury\\\" are reviewed and limitations are discussed such as shared measurement variance with established psychological instruments.\\r\\n\\r\\nKEY MESSAGES\\r\\nWe identified conceptual strategies for investigating behavioral and neurobiological features of PMIEs that could be used to inform the field of traumatic stress. We concluded that the construct of \\\"moral injury\\\" may provide an interpretive framework for positing why someone may be beset by guilt, shame, and/or rage whereas existing psychiatric diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression provide comprehensive descriptions regarding what someone might experience following extremely stressful events. We proposed directions to better clarify the boundaries of \\\"moral injury\\\" versus established psychiatric categories that could be used to enhance the conceptualization and assessment of this construct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540030\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540030","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Enhancing Conceptual Clarity regarding the Construct of Moral Injury.
BACKGROUND
The construct of "moral injury" is used widely in the research literature and media to broadly describe the impact of events involving perceived violations of one's sense of right and wrong (herein referred to as "potentially morally injurious events" [PMIEs]).
SUMMARY
In this theoretical review, we provided a brief overview of the "moral injury" construct and its limitations including the lack of consensus-drawn boundaries and operational definitions to guide hypothesis-driven research. We discussed whether this construct can be reliably distinguished from established psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs and the inherent challenges in separating or classifying the impact of high-magnitude stressful life events that likely form the majority of PMIEs. Assessments that purportedly measure "moral injury" are reviewed and limitations are discussed such as shared measurement variance with established psychological instruments.
KEY MESSAGES
We identified conceptual strategies for investigating behavioral and neurobiological features of PMIEs that could be used to inform the field of traumatic stress. We concluded that the construct of "moral injury" may provide an interpretive framework for positing why someone may be beset by guilt, shame, and/or rage whereas existing psychiatric diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression provide comprehensive descriptions regarding what someone might experience following extremely stressful events. We proposed directions to better clarify the boundaries of "moral injury" versus established psychiatric categories that could be used to enhance the conceptualization and assessment of this construct.
期刊介绍:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field.
As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers.
The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.