Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moral Distress Among Healthcare Professionals: Report of an Institution‐Wide Survey

Whitehead, Phyllis B., Herbertson, Robert K., Hamric, Ann B., Epstein, Elizabeth G., Fisher, Joan M.·2015·Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Abstract

Purpose: Moral distress is a phenomenon affecting many professionals across healthcare settings. Few studies have used a standard measure of moral distress to assess and compare differences among professions and settings. Design: A descriptive, comparative design was used to study moral distress among all healthcare professionals and all settings at one large healthcare system in January 2011. Methods: Data were gathered via a web‐based survey of demographics, the Moral Distress Scale‐Revised (MDS‐R), and a shortened version of Olson's Hospital Ethical Climate Scale (HECS‐S). Findings: Five hundred ninety‐two (592) clinicians completed usable surveys (22%). Moral distress was present in all professional groups. Nurses and other professionals involved in direct patient care had significantly higher moral distress than physicians (p = .001) and other indirect care professionals (p < .001). Moral distress was negatively correlated with ethical workplace climate (r = ‐0.516; p < .001). Watching patient care suffer due to lack of continuity and poor communication were the highest‐ranked sources of moral distress for all professional groups, but the groups varied in other identified sources. Providers working in adult or intensive care unit (ICU) settings had higher levels of moral distress than did clinicians in pediatric or non‐ICU settings (p < .001). Providers who left or considered leaving a position had significantly higher moral distress levels than those who never considered leaving (p < .001). Providers who had training in end‐of‐life care had higher average levels of moral distress than those without this training (p = .005). Conclusions: Although there may be differences in perspectives and experiences, moral distress is a common experience for clinicians, regardless of profession. Clinical Relevance: Moral distress is associated with burnout and intention to leave a position. By understanding its root causes, interventions can be tailored to minimize moral distress with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care, staff satisfaction, and retention.

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 · 10.1111/jnu.12115

Cites

26 of 26 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 26 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Whitehead, P. B., Herbertson, R. K., Hamric, A. B., Epstein, E. G., & Fisher, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-29
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
117-125
ISSN
  • 0363-2792 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-6546
  • 1547-5069
OpenAlex
W1904068628
Cited by
512
References
26
FWCI
39.49
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: Moral Distress Among Healthcare Professionals: Report of an Institution‐Wide Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jnu.12115
The paper
Whitehead, P. B., Herbertson, R. K., Hamric, A. B., Epstein, E. G., & Fisher, J. M. (2015). Moral Distress Among Healthcare Professionals: Report of an Institution‐Wide Survey. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12115

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.