The Moral Distress Model Revisited: Integrating Nurses' Experiences in the United States and United Kingdom.

Q3 Medicine
Georgina Morley, Rosemary B Field
{"title":"The Moral Distress Model Revisited: Integrating Nurses' Experiences in the United States and United Kingdom.","authors":"Georgina Morley, Rosemary B Field","doi":"10.1086/734775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractScholars have challenged Jameton's original conceptualization of moral distress on the basis that it is too narrow and discounts significant moral experiences. Further inconsistencies about the necessary and sufficient conditions required for moral distress to occur have heightened conceptual ambiguities. The aims of this research were to examine nurses' experiences of moral distress and to utilize these findings to critically examine a previous model of moral distress developed from data gathered in the United Kingdom. This article presents findings from a feminist interpretive phenomenological study in which nurses in the United States were interviewed about their experiences of moral distress. Nurse participants in this study described experiencing strong negative emotions in response to five distinct morally challenging situations. These situations were categorized into the same five moral events as identified in the original study, reinforcing the five subcategories identified from interviews with nurses in the United Kingdom. The most significant change to the moral distress model was centering the interpretive and evaluative component of moral distress. Understanding moral distress as subcategories enables a more precise analysis of moral distress, while retaining the power of the term \"moral distress.\" The revised moral distress model can guide our responses to moral distress and interventions to mitigate its negative effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 2","pages":"132-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/734775","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractScholars have challenged Jameton's original conceptualization of moral distress on the basis that it is too narrow and discounts significant moral experiences. Further inconsistencies about the necessary and sufficient conditions required for moral distress to occur have heightened conceptual ambiguities. The aims of this research were to examine nurses' experiences of moral distress and to utilize these findings to critically examine a previous model of moral distress developed from data gathered in the United Kingdom. This article presents findings from a feminist interpretive phenomenological study in which nurses in the United States were interviewed about their experiences of moral distress. Nurse participants in this study described experiencing strong negative emotions in response to five distinct morally challenging situations. These situations were categorized into the same five moral events as identified in the original study, reinforcing the five subcategories identified from interviews with nurses in the United Kingdom. The most significant change to the moral distress model was centering the interpretive and evaluative component of moral distress. Understanding moral distress as subcategories enables a more precise analysis of moral distress, while retaining the power of the term "moral distress." The revised moral distress model can guide our responses to moral distress and interventions to mitigate its negative effects.

重新审视道德困境模型:整合美国和英国护士的经验。
摘要学者们质疑詹姆斯顿关于道德困境的原始概念,认为它过于狭隘,忽视了重要的道德经验。关于道德痛苦发生的必要和充分条件的进一步不一致加剧了概念上的模糊性。本研究的目的是检查护士的道德困扰的经验,并利用这些发现来严格检查从英国收集的数据开发的道德困扰以前的模型。本文介绍了一项女权主义解释现象学研究的结果,在该研究中,美国护士接受了关于他们道德困境经历的采访。这项研究的护士参与者描述了在五种不同的道德挑战情况下经历强烈的负面情绪。这些情况被归类为与原始研究中确定的相同的五种道德事件,强化了从英国护士访谈中确定的五个子类别。道德困境模型最显著的变化是以道德困境的解释和评价成分为中心。将道德困境理解为子类别,可以更精确地分析道德困境,同时保留“道德困境”一词的力量。修正后的道德困境模型可以指导我们对道德困境的反应和干预,以减轻其负面影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信