Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 580

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing Understanding of Moral Distress: The Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals

Epstein, Elizabeth G., Whitehead, Phyllis B., Prompahakul, Chuleeporn, Thacker, Leroy R., Hamric, Ann B.·2019·AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As ongoing research explores the impact of moral distress on health care professionals (HCPs) and organizations and seeks to develop effective interventions, valid and reliable instruments to measure moral distress are needed. This article describes the development and testing of a revision of the widely used Moral Distress Scale-Revised (MDS-R) to measure moral distress. METHODS: We revised the MDS-R by evaluating the combined data from 22 previous studies, assessing 301 write-in items and 209 root causes identified through moral distress consultation, and reviewing 14 recent publications from various professions in which root causes were described. The revised 27-item scale, the Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP), is usable by all HCPs in adult and pediatric critical, acute, or long-term acute care settings. We then assessed the reliability of the MMD-HP and evaluated construct validity via hypothesis testing. The MMD-HP, Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS), and a demographic survey were distributed electronically via Qualtrics to nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals at two academic medical centers over a 3-week period. RESULTS: In total, 653 surveys were included in the final analysis. The MMD-HP demonstrated good reliability. The four hypotheses were supported: (1) MMD-HP scores were higher for nurses (M 112.3, SD 73.2) than for physicians (M 96.3, SD 54.7, p = 0.023). (2) MMD-HP scores were higher for those considering leaving their position (M 168.4, SD 75.8) than for those not considering leaving (M 94.3, SD 61.2, p < 0.001). (3) The MMD-HP was negatively correlated with the HECS (r = -0.55, p < 0.001). (4) An exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure, reflective of patient, unit, and system levels of moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: The MMD-HP represents the most currently understood causes of moral distress. Because the instrument behaves as would be predicted, we recommend that the MMD-HP replace the MDS-R.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23294515.2019.1586008

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 580

Metadata

Authors
Epstein, E. G., Whitehead, P. B., Prompahakul, C., Thacker, L. R., & Hamric, A. B.
Venue
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Published
2019-04-03
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
113-124
ISSN
  • 2329-4515 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-4523
OpenAlex
W2935780589
Cited by
580
References
46
FWCI
68.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enhancing Understanding of Moral Distress: The Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/23294515.2019.1586008
The paper
Epstein, E. G., Whitehead, P. B., Prompahakul, C., Thacker, L. R., & Hamric, A. B. (2019). Enhancing Understanding of Moral Distress: The Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1586008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.