Georgina Morley1, Rosemary Field2, Cristie Cole Horsburgh3, Christian Burchill4. 1. Center for Bioethics and Stanley S. Zielony Institute for Nursing Excellence, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: morleyg@ccf.org. 2. Stanley S. Zielony Institute for Nursing Excellence, Cleveland Clinic Marymount Hospital, 12300 McCracken Road, Garfield Heights, Cleveland, 44125, OH, USA. Electronic address: fieldr@ccf.org. 3. Center for Bioethics, Clinical Transformation, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: colec@ccf.org. 4. Office of Nursing Research and Innovation, Stanley S. Zielony Institute for Nursing Excellence, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: Christian.Burchill@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moral distress is a pervasive phenomenon that can negatively impact healthcare professionals and has been well studied in nursing populations. Much of the evidence suggests that it is associated with intention to leave high acuity areas and the profession. Despite the increasing amounts of research to explore the causes and effects of moral distress, there is limited research on interventions that mitigate the negative effects of moral distress. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this systematic review were to: (a) identify and examine interventions developed to address moral distress experienced by health care professionals (b) examine the quality of the research methods and (c) report on the efficacy of these interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of interventional studies developed to mitigate moral distress. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies (July 2019- September 2019). Additional bioethics databases and reference lists were also hand-searched. REVIEW METHODS: The first author reviewed all retrieved titles and abstracts with a low tolerance for borderline papers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and those papers were reviewed and discussed by all authors to determine inclusion. Quality appraisal was conducted on the included studies using narrative synthesis to compare the findings. Data were extracted and compared by all authors and then reviewed by the first author for consistency. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included for full text review and the following interventions identified: educational interventions of varying length and breadth; facilitated discussions ranging from 30 to 60 minutes; specialist consultation services; an intervention bundle; multidisciplinary rounds; self-reflection and narrative writing. Researchers reported statistically significant reductions in moral distress using pre and post surveys, including one mixed methods program evaluation (n=7). The qualitative program evaluation provided participant quotations to suggest their program was beneficial. There were no statistically significant findings in the other studies (n=8). All studies had limitations in design and methodology presenting significant threats to validity. CONCLUSION: Designing rigorous research studies that measure the impact of interventions aimed at mitigating moral distress continues to be challenging. The primary reason being that moral distress is a subjective ethical phenomenon with a number of different causes and effects. This calls for interventions that are flexible and sensitive to individual's needs. To build an evidence-base, interventions should also be measurable and research methods need to be scientifically rigorous. To achieve rigor and innovation, researchers should clearly justify their methodological choices. Tweetable abstract: Interventions to mitigate moral distress: a systematic review of the literature. Educational interventions offer a promising direction but more research is needed.
BACKGROUND: Moral distress is a pervasive phenomenon that can negatively impact healthcare professionals and has been well studied in nursing populations. Much of the evidence suggests that it is associated with intention to leave high acuity areas and the profession. Despite the increasing amounts of research to explore the causes and effects of moral distress, there is limited research on interventions that mitigate the negative effects of moral distress. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this systematic review were to: (a) identify and examine interventions developed to address moral distress experienced by health care professionals (b) examine the quality of the research methods and (c) report on the efficacy of these interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of interventional studies developed to mitigate moral distress. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies (July 2019- September 2019). Additional bioethics databases and reference lists were also hand-searched. REVIEW METHODS: The first author reviewed all retrieved titles and abstracts with a low tolerance for borderline papers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and those papers were reviewed and discussed by all authors to determine inclusion. Quality appraisal was conducted on the included studies using narrative synthesis to compare the findings. Data were extracted and compared by all authors and then reviewed by the first author for consistency. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included for full text review and the following interventions identified: educational interventions of varying length and breadth; facilitated discussions ranging from 30 to 60 minutes; specialist consultation services; an intervention bundle; multidisciplinary rounds; self-reflection and narrative writing. Researchers reported statistically significant reductions in moral distress using pre and post surveys, including one mixed methods program evaluation (n=7). The qualitative program evaluation provided participant quotations to suggest their program was beneficial. There were no statistically significant findings in the other studies (n=8). All studies had limitations in design and methodology presenting significant threats to validity. CONCLUSION: Designing rigorous research studies that measure the impact of interventions aimed at mitigating moral distress continues to be challenging. The primary reason being that moral distress is a subjective ethical phenomenon with a number of different causes and effects. This calls for interventions that are flexible and sensitive to individual's needs. To build an evidence-base, interventions should also be measurable and research methods need to be scientifically rigorous. To achieve rigor and innovation, researchers should clearly justify their methodological choices. Tweetable abstract: Interventions to mitigate moral distress: a systematic review of the literature. Educational interventions offer a promising direction but more research is needed.
Authors: Chiara Grasso; Davide Massidda; Karolina Zaneta Maslak; Cinzia Favara-Scacco; Francesco Antonio Grasso; Carmela Bencivenga; Valerio Confalone; Elisabetta Lampugnani; Andrea Moscatelli; Marta Somaini; Simonetta Tesoro; Giulia Lamiani; Marinella Astuto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shannon D Simonovich; Kashica J Webber-Ritchey; Roxanne S Spurlark; Kristine Florczak; Lucy Mueller Wiesemann; Tiffany N Ponder; Madeline Reid; Denita Shino; Bonnie R Stevens; Elizabeth Aquino; Donna Badowski; Christina Lattner; Cheryl Soco; Susan Krawczyk; Kim Amer Journal: SAGE Open Nurs Date: 2022-04-07