IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p10640-d898272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral Distress Scores of Nurses Working in Intensive Care Units for Adults Using Corley’s Scale: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Noemi Giannetta

    (School of Nursing, UniCamillus—Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, 00131 Rome, Italy)

  • Giulia Villa

    (Center for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Loris Bonetti

    (Department of Nursing, Nursing Research Centre, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland
    Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, 6928 Manno, Switzerland)

  • Sara Dionisi

    (Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 00133 Rome, Italy)

  • Andrea Pozza

    (Department of Medical Sciences, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Stefano Rolandi

    (IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Debora Rosa

    (Department of Cardiovascular, Neural, and Metabolic Sciences, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, 20149 Milan, Italy)

  • Duilio Fiorenzo Manara

    (Center for Nursing Research and Innovation, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Background: No systematic review in the literature has analyzed the intensity and frequency of moral distress among ICU nurses. No study seems to have mapped the leading personal and professional characteristics associated with high levels of moral distress. This systematic review aimed to describe the intensity and frequency of moral distress experienced by nurses in ICUs, as assessed by Corley’s instruments on moral distress (the Moral Distress Scale and the Moral Distress Scale–Revised). Additionally, this systematic review aimed to summarize the correlates of moral distress. Methods: A systematic search and review were performed using the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed), and Psychological Abstracts Information Services (PsycINFO). The review methodology followed PRISMA guidelines. The quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Findings showed a moderate level of moral distress among nurses working in ICUs. The findings of this systematic review confirm that there are a lot of triggers of moral distress related to patient-level factors, unit/team-level factors, or system-level causes. Beyond the triggers of moral distress, this systematic review showed some correlates of moral distress: those nurses working in ICUs with less work experience and those who are younger, female, and intend to leave their jobs have higher levels of moral distress. This systematic review’s findings show a positive correlation between professional autonomy, empowerment, and moral distress scores. Additionally, nurses who feel supported by head nurses report lower moral distress scores. Conclusions: This review could help better identify which professionals are at a higher risk of experiencing moral distress, allowing the early detection of those at risk of moral distress, and giving the organization some tools to implement preventive strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Noemi Giannetta & Giulia Villa & Loris Bonetti & Sara Dionisi & Andrea Pozza & Stefano Rolandi & Debora Rosa & Duilio Fiorenzo Manara, 2022. "Moral Distress Scores of Nurses Working in Intensive Care Units for Adults Using Corley’s Scale: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10640-:d:898272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10640/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10640/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10640-:d:898272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.