Next Article in Journal
Childhood Caries Management
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding Moral Distress among Eldercare Workers: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Attitudes and Opinions of Parents towards Water-Only Drink Policy at Junior Triathlon Events
Previous Article in Special Issue
Moral Distress Events and Emotional Trajectories in Nursing Narratives during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph19148526
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Moral Distress and Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy

by
Sara Carletto
1,2,
Maria Chiara Ariotti
3,
Giulia Garelli
2,
Ludovica Di Noto
4,
Paola Berchialla
5,
Francesca Malandrone
5,*,
Roberta Guardione
6,
Floriana Boarino
7,
Maria Francesca Campagnoli
6,
Patrizia Savant Levet
8,
Enrico Bertino
3,
Luca Ostacoli
2,5 and
Alessandra Coscia
3
1
Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini”, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, TO, Italy
2
Clinical Psychology Unit, A.O.U. City of Health and Science of Torino, 10126 Turin, TO, Italy
3
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of University of Torino, Sant’Anna Hospital, City of Health and Science, 10126 Turin, TO, Italy
4
Formerly at the School of Medicine, University of Torino, 10126 Turin, TO, Italy
5
Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10043 Turin, TO, Italy
6
Neonatal Care Unit, City of Health and Science University Hospital of Torino, 10126 Turin, TO, Italy
7
Neonatal Care Unit, Santa Croce Hospital ASL TO5, 10024 Moncalieri, TO, Italy
8
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Maria Vittoria Hospital, ASL Città di Torino, 10144 Turin, TO, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8526; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148526
Submission received: 14 June 2022 / Revised: 9 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 12 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Moral Distress and Mental Health among Healthcare Professionals)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Moral distress (MD) in healthcare providers is widely recognized as a serious issue in critical care contexts. It has the potential to have negative impacts on both personal and professional wellbeing, the quality of care provided and staff turnover. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between MD and burnout among neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) healthcare professionals and identify the possible factors associated with its occurrence. Participants were asked to complete an online survey, which covered sociodemographic and professional information and included two self-report questionnaires (Italian Moral Distress Scale-Revised and Maslach Burnout Inventory). The sample comprised 115 healthcare providers (nurses and physiotherapists: 66.1%; physicians: 30.4%; healthcare assistants: 3.5%) working in four NICUs located within the province of Turin, Italy. The results revealed overall low levels of MD, with no significant differences between nurses/physiotherapists and physicians. Nurses/physiotherapists showed a statistically significant higher percentage of personal accomplishment burnout (32.9%) compared with physicians (8.6%; p = 0.012). MD was associated with the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout. Spirituality and/or religiousness was shown to be a moderating variable. Further research is needed to deepen our understanding of the correlation between MD and burnout and the role of spirituality and/or religiousness as moderators.

1. Introduction

Moral distress (MD) concerns the distress associated with the moral integrity of a person. Its construct was first theorized in the 1980s by Jameton [1], and the first qualitative research on MD, conducted shortly afterwards by Wilkinson, contributed towards identifying the main situations in which MD arises and outlined its main consequences on the individual [2,3]. Since then, many authors have offered further elaborations of the original definition of MD in order to facilitate its application and identify the circumstances in which it may emerge [4]. Briefly, MD refers to the psychological, emotional and physiological suffering that arises when an individual’s actions contrast with his/her deepest ethical values, principles or commitments. A number of key necessary and/or sufficient conditions have been identified that explain the occurrence of this phenomenon, and they can be used to differentiate it from other forms of distress [4]. MD occurs when a person is required to perform a task perceived by the subject to violate their values [4,5,6]. This may arise due to perceived external constraints, which may involve characteristics of their working environment, be related to their specific profession, or be related to the quality of their unit/team work relationships [7,8,9].
MD can have many consequences and be experienced from different perspectives. It can have negative impacts on both personal and professional life spheres [10]. Consequences within the personal sphere may provoke emotional responses, manifesting as depression, anxiety, anger or frustration, physical disorders such as headaches or sleeping disorders [11,12,13], and psychological effects, which have an impact on the subject’s coping strategies and may bring about a loss of autonomy and the sense of disempowerment [1,2,9,14]. Within the professional sphere, MD can impact the quality of the work being performed and, as a consequence, the worker’s sense of job satisfaction [4,15,16,17]. Furthermore, MD may contribute to the decision of healthcare providers to leave their profession, and thus, raise staff turnover within a healthcare facility [3,18,19,20]. The relationship between MD and employee turnover is also influenced by other factors, such as burnout and the ethical climate of the organization [21,22,23].
Burnout is caused by excessive and prolonged stress, and it can be considered as a result of a disturbance of the equilibrium between the job demands individuals are exposed to and the resources they have at their disposal [24]. It is characterized by a state of emotional, physical and mental exhaustion, and includes elements of emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP) and diminished personal accomplishment (PA) [25]. Several studies have confirmed an association between MD and burnout [18,26,27,28,29], with burnout widely considered to be an effect of MD [6,28,30,31], although the relationship between the two has yet to be fully elucidated. MD can lead to moral apathy, feelings of helplessness, lack of confidence, anxiety, frustration and anger, as well as to other situations that can further contribute towards the development of burnout [28,32,33,34].
Due to the nature of careers in healthcare, and the high commitment levels required to work in clinical situations, especially in contexts characterized by high stress levels, it is not surprising that MD has been largely studied and detected in medical care scenarios [15]. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that all healthcare professionals may experience MD, albeit in different forms and at different intensities [18,35,36,37,38].
Intensive care units (ICUs) are medical care environments in which healthcare professionals are highly susceptible to experiencing MD due to the highly vulnerable nature of their patients, for whom every decision and action taken is of utmost importance. Disagreements between colleagues within an ICU are also likely to be highly charged, exacerbated by the necessity for timeliness, the appropriateness of intervention choices made, the responsibility for making end-of-life decisions and the uncertainty of treatment outcomes [26,39,40]. This point is especially true for neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), in which the medical staff are responsible for caring for premature and critically ill neonates, treatment choices, interacting with the parents and making treatment and care decisions for babies in life-threatening conditions [18,35,36,41,42]. MD experienced by healthcare workers in the NICUs can negatively affect their ability to provide the best quality of care and interact in the best possible way with the patients’ families [18].
Studies conducted in the context of NICUs have highlighted some demographic characteristics associated with the probability of experiencing MD. Although it is important to recognize that the risk of MD is a reality for all practitioners in the neonatal ward, it has been especially linked with nursing professions. This is probably a consequence of their perceived lack of power in making decisions and difficulties experienced in nurse–physician interprofessional relationships and teamwork [39]. Previous studies have also identified the number of years working in the NICU as both a risk factor and a protective factor: on the one hand, the more that a healthcare professional is exposed to morally distressing situations, the more likely they are to accumulate unresolved distress (the so-called “crescendo effect”) [6]; on the other hand, the longer a healthcare provider remains in a profession, the more likely they are to feel confident about their performances and the less likely they may be to quit their position [10,36,43].
Other studies have shown a possible correlation between self-reported levels of religiousness and spirituality in healthcare professionals and the experiencing of MD, but the results published on this aspect to date remain unclear and controversial [8,10,16,30,34,35,44,45]. Lastly, various studies have emphasized the need to investigate the occurrence of MD and burnout in NICU workers while simultaneously investigating the contribution of other factors in order to understand the nature of their interaction better [18,32,46].
In the Italian context, a limited number of studies have explored MD among healthcare professionals [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54], but only one study involved those working in NICUs [55]. The study showed low-to-moderate MD levels, but the sample consisted of nurses only and the relationship between MD and burnout was not investigated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate MD and burnout levels in NICU healthcare providers and to identify the factors associated with its occurrence.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

The sample of this cross-sectional study was composed of healthcare providers working in any one of the four NICUs operating within the province of Turin, Italy (two NICUs in Sant’Anna Hospital, University Hospital “Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino”, Turin; the NICU in Maria Vittoria Hospital, ASL Città di Torino, Turin; and the NICU in Santa Croce Hospital, ASL TO5, Moncalieri). Participants were eligible for inclusion if they worked as physicians, nurses, physiotherapists or healthcare assistants in one of the aforementioned NICUs. Those who did not provide their consent were excluded from the study. Healthcare providers were recruited from December 2021 to February 2022 through an email sent to their institutional email address which invited them to participate in the electronic survey set on the Google Forms platform. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Turin. Informed consent was obtained by asking all participants to click a button at the beginning of the online survey consenting to their participation. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and participants received no compensation.

2.2. Study Measures

The online survey took about 15 min to complete and was composed of two sections. The first included questions about sociodemographic factors (age, educational level, living status, children), professional information (profession, years of professional experience, years of professional experience in the NICU, full- or part-time contract, having left work for reasons unrelated to MD), and data about their religious and spiritual orientation. Regarding the latter, as religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive but possess overlapping as well as distinct elements [56], we asked participants to define which of the following categories they identified with most: (i) neither religious nor spiritual; (ii) spiritual but not religious; (iii) religious but not spiritual; (iv) both spiritual and religious.
The second section comprised two validated self-report questionnaires:
  • The Italian Moral Distress Scale-Revised (MDS-R) [49], a 14-item self-report instrument to assess moral distress among critical care clinicians. Each item was scored on two 5-point Likert scales from 0 to 4, assessing the intensity and frequency of moral distress. For each item, a composite score was computed by multiplying the frequency by the intensity scores, generating an overall score ranging from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating higher levels of moral distress.
  • The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) [57], a 22-item self-report questionnaire assessing burnout, divided into three domains: emotional exhaustion (EE; 9 items), depersonalization (DP; 5 items), and personal accomplishment (PA; 8 items). The frequency of symptoms within each of these domains was scored on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (every day), and summarized as continuous variables on the basis of a composite score (EE 0–54, DP 0–30, and PA 0–48). Each scale was devised such that higher scores indicate more of each construct. Higher scores on the EE and DP subscales indicate a higher degree of burnout symptoms, whereas lower scores on the PA subscale indicate a higher burnout burden. The Italian validation of the questionnaire established the following ranges for high, medium or low levels of each construct in healthcare providers: high: EE ≥ 24, DP ≥ 9, PA ≥ 37; medium: EE = 15–23, DP = 4–8, PA = 30–36; low: EE ≤ 14, DP ≤ 3, PA ≤ 29 [58].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as the median plus interquartile range (IQR), and groups were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables were summarized as counts and percentages, and the χ2 test or Fisher’s test was performed, as appropriate, to test for differences between groups. A univariate analysis based on a linear regression model was carried out to identify associations between sociodemographic variables and MDS-R, MBI-EE, MBI-DP and MBI-PA. Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported. A final multivariate model was developed based on statistical selection procedures. Model selection was performed using an automatic approach based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC) method. Given the large number of covariates, a genetic algorithm was employed to explore the candidate set of models. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.1.2 (R Company, https://www.r-project.org).

3. Results

3.1. Subject Characteristics

A total of 197 healthcare providers were asked to participate in the online survey; 115 questionnaires were collected, giving a response rate of 58.4%. Sample characteristics, summarized as percentages, are shown in Table 1. Nurses and physiotherapists (grouped together into a single category) made up 66.1% of the sample, and thus constituted the majority of participants; 30.4% were physicians, and only 3.5% were healthcare assistants. Just over half of the sample (55.7%) reported to have been working in the NICU for more than 10 years.

3.2. Moral Distress and Burnout Levels

MDS-R total scores ranged from 0.2 to 13 for nurses/physiotherapists, with a median score of 4.36 (IQR: 2.39–5.64); for physicians it ranged from 1.7 to 10, with a median score of 3.36 (IQR: 2.68–4.11) (Table 2). No significant differences between groups were observed. Table 2 also reports the total scores for the three burnout dimensions, MBI-EE, MBI-DP and MBI-PA, and the percentage of respondents with scores of MBI-EE ≥ 24, MBI-DP ≥ 9 and MBI-PA ≤ 29, which indicate burnout as a dichotomous variable. A significantly higher percentage of nurses/physiotherapists were classified as experiencing burnout on the Personal Accomplishment (PA) scale (32.9%) compared with physicians (8.6%) (p = 0.012).

3.3. Associations between Other Variables, Moral Distress and Burnout

Initial univariate analyses of the relationship between demographic variables and the MDS-R score indicated no statistically significant association with the professional category, other sociodemographic variables, professional experience or spirituality with moral distress or burnout (Table 3).
Using statistical selection techniques, a linear regression model was implemented to explore in more detail the presence of potential associations between respondent variables and MDS-R scores. A genetic algorithm was applied to find the best model in terms of AIC, considering all the explanatory variables in the univariate analysis along with the MBI scale score as a potential mediator. The resulting model showed MBI-EE to be significantly associated with MDS-R: for each unit increase in MBI-EE, the MDS-R score also increased by a mean of 0.13 (95%CI 0.06–0.21, p = 0.001) in individuals with a comparable spirituality rating and MBI-DP (Table 4). In addition, the increase was statistically smaller among more religious and/or spiritual individuals compared with individuals reporting no religious or spiritual inclination (Table 4).
Figure 1 depicts the correlation between MDS-R and the MBI scale. The correlations between MDS-R and MBI-EE, MBI-DP and MBI-PA are 0.3 (p = 0.001), 0.29 (p = 0.002) and –0.18 (p = 0.051), respectively.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate moral distress and burnout in healthcare providers working in Italian NICUs. As highlighted in previous research, healthcare professionals working in NICU settings may be at a higher risk of developing MD than in other hospital departments, which may in turn have negative effects on both personal and professional wellbeing, as well as significant repercussions on patient care [35,41].
This study sample reported overall low levels of MD in healthcare professionals from the four NICUs located in Northern Italy. MDS-R scores were slightly lower in physicians than in nurses/physiotherapists, although the difference was not significant. Although this result contrasts with that of some studies which found higher MD levels in nurses than in other professional categories [15,18,26,43,53,54,59], it is in line with others which instead found no differences in MD levels between physicians and non-physicians [36,49,60]. The differences between the various studies may be due to the different social and cultural characteristics of the study samples and the different organizational contexts. Very few studies exist in the literature which have investigated MD in all the professional categories working in NICUs; thus, further studies are needed to better clarify the presence of possible differences.
The prevalence of the three underlying burnout dimensions in our sample (high EE: 36%; high DP: 19.8%; low PA: 25.2%) was similar to that reported in a recent meta-analysis on pediatric nurses (high EE: 31%; high DP; 21%; low PA: 39%) [61]. The comparison of professional categories revealed no significant difference in the percentage of nurses/physiotherapists experiencing high EE compared with physicians (28% vs. 12%, p = 0.962). There was a non-significant trend for high DP to be more prevalent in nurses/physiotherapists compared with physicians (19% vs. 3%, p = 0.078), and a very significant trend for low PA in the former vs. the latter (32.9% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.012). Previous studies investigating burnout dimensions in pediatric healthcare professionals showed its development to be multidimensional and largely influenced by personal, professional and organizational/contextual factors [62]. Indeed, the exact role of the professional category as a factor associated with burnout risk remains unclear in the existing literature, with inconsistent results across studies. Some studies showed that nursing professionals and respiratory therapists have significantly higher levels of burnout than physicians [63,64,65], whereas other studies showed higher levels of burnout in physicians [66,67]. A low PA level indicates the presence of significant feelings of perceived ineffectiveness and frustration regarding work-related achievements. In particular, low PA seems to be associated with poor task significance, poor task clarity, low decision latitude and the lack of perceived social support [68]. With this in mind, we might hypothesize that nurses/physiotherapists would be more likely to experience these types of frustrations compared with physicians, given their job roles and limitations when looking after NICU patients. Although burnout is increasingly recognized as a significant problem among healthcare professionals working in intensive care units [69], few studies have focused on pediatric intensive care, and even fewer on the NICU context [70]. Considering the significant impact burnout can have at multiple levels (personal wellbeing, the quality of care offered to patients and families, the organization), further studies are needed to investigate the severity and prevalence of this syndrome in healthcare providers working in NICUs [71].
The results of our study revealed a correlation between MD and burnout levels, corroborating the results of numerous other studies from an array of healthcare contexts [18,28,30,32,46,51,72,73,74,75,76], especially in relation to EE and DP [26,47,77]. It is widely acknowledged that healthcare providers working in NICUs may be exposed to various ethical problems and stressors related to the clinical situations of the patients and their families (e.g., critically ill or dying patients; dealing with the families’ perception of certain treatments as being futile) as well as the relational dynamics of their work group/interdisciplinary medical team (e.g., poor communication) and the organizational context (e.g., lack of resources), which can act as determinants for both MD and burnout [47]. Although early studies described burnout as a consequence of prolonged exposure to MD [6,28,30], more recent studies have highlighted the relationship between MD and burnout to be part of a complex interplay, in which other mediating and moderating factors also play key roles [46,72,78].
The present study revealed a significant association between MD and EE moderated by spirituality and/or religiousness. In fact, the association between EE and MD was significantly weaker among religious and/or spiritual individuals as compared with those who considered themselves non-religious and non-spiritual. Individual spiritual and religious beliefs can have an impact on the perception of MD [45]. One study showed that experiences of MD can negatively influence spiritual well-being [8]. Moreover, studies conducted in non-Western countries, in which religion plays a more prominent role in people’s sociocultural life, evidenced that the conflict between professional values and religious beliefs may contribute to the development of MD [75,79]. On the other hand, being spiritual and/or religious may act as a protective factor for both MD and the EE dimension of burnout [16,30,73,75,80]; one explanation is that it may decrease perceived suffering and dissatisfaction related to MD [80]. Spiritual and/or religious resources may provide an individual with coping skills [10,81], helping the subject to manage feelings of helplessness, reducing feelings of worthlessness, and promoting a personal sense of meaning [45,80] whilst confronting morally distressing situations. Very few studies have considered the role of religiosity/spirituality as a factor related to MD in the context of NICUs. In the study conducted by Catlin et al. [45], healthcare workers considered spirituality and religion to be a central element contributing to patient-centered care, and most of them (83%) declared to pray in private for the NICUs’ newborns. Praying was also recognized as a source of relief and refuge when dealing with the most distressing patient cases. Cavaliere and colleagues [16] found that NICU nurses who were not spiritual had significantly higher levels of MD than those who were “very” or “somewhat” spiritual. Finally, Kukora and Boss [82] pointed out the need for NICU healthcare professionals to take the religious and spiritual values of the parents into consideration when embarking on shared decision-making processes related to a newborn’s care. To this end, the need to incorporate spirituality into training courses for healthcare providers working in NICUs is crucial, not only to mitigate their emotional burden, and thus reducing levels of MD and burnout, but also to improve the quality of care offered in a family-centered care perspective [83]. As very few studies have been conducted on these issues thus far, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of the role of spirituality and religiousness as moderators of the relationship between burnout and MD.
The main strengths of this study are that it investigated MD together with all three dimensions of burnout, and revealed a significant role of spirituality/religiosity as one of the potential moderating effects of the MD–burnout relationship. The study also has a number of limitations. First, due it its cross-sectional design, only associations between the variables studied can be detected, precluding definitive conclusions regarding the direction of causality. Second, the generalizability of our findings is limited by the respondents’ self-selection of responses, the lack of data on non-responders, the limited number of NICU healthcare providers participating in the study and the restricted geographical area in which these four NICUs are located. Third, data regarding gender were not collected in order to ensure the anonymity of the participants. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are needed to deepen our understanding of MD and burnout among NICU healthcare providers, particularly in the Italian context, as the results would help identify strategies to alleviate both MD and burnout.
Future studies might also consider using a pediatric-specific instrument for MD (see Grasso et al. [53]), pending the development and validation of an NICU-specific version. In fact, the NICU context is peculiar due to the heterogeneity of the newborn populations and their clinical conditions (e.g., pre-term, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, congenital malformations, etc.) and, therefore, the heterogeneity of the associated ethical issues. It is also crucial to consider other “individual” factors, such as those related to the emotional intelligence [84] and work–life balance of the professional [78], “contextual” factors (e.g., family perspectives) [85], and “organizational” factors. Such an approach would help to identify those individuals most at risk of developing MD and burnout [23,86] and to investigate the complex interplay between these variables. Potentially morally challenging situations are an inevitable component of the NICU healthcare providers’ experience [18], and can be considered a potential source of growth and self-improvement if exploited correctly [41]. At the same time, if MD remains undetected and without any appropriate interventions, it can have significant repercussions on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, on the work climate of the interdisciplinary medical team and on the quality of the care provided to patients and families [41,86].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study revealed an association between MD levels in NICU healthcare providers and levels of burnout, in particular the EE dimension; this relationship was also shown to be moderated by spirituality/religiousness. Further research is needed to fully explore the role of religious beliefs and spiritual well-being on MD and burnout whilst bearing in mind the possible influence of different sociocultural components.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and M.C.A.; methodology, S.C., M.C.A., G.G., L.D.N. and F.M.; formal analysis, P.B.; investigation, M.C.A., R.G., F.B., M.F.C., A.C. and P.S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C., G.G. and P.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, L.O. and E.B.; project administration, S.C. and M.C.A.; funding acquisition, S.C., L.O. and E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Torino (protocol code 0666517 of 16 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (S.C.) upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the healthcare providers who participated in the study for their time. They are also grateful to Stephanie Parsley for the proofreading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jameton, A. Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wilkinson, J.M. Moral Distress in Nursing Practice: Experience and Effect. Nurs. Forum 1987, 23, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. McCarthy, J.; Deady, R. Moral Distress Reconsidered. Nurs. Ethics 2008, 15, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Morley, G.; Ives, J.; Bradbury-Jones, C.; Irvine, F. What Is ‘Moral Distress’? A Narrative Synthesis of the Literature. Nurs. Ethics 2019, 26, 646–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Epstein, E.G.; Delgado, S. Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress. OJIN-Online J. Issues Nurs. 2010, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Epstein, E.; Hamric, A. Moral Distress, Moral Residue, and the Crescendo Effect. J. Clin. Ethics 2009, 20, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Austin, W. Contemporary Healthcare Practice and the Risk of Moral Distress. Healthc. Manag. Forum 2016, 29, 131–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Elpern, E.H.; Covert, B.; Kleinpell, R. Moral Distress of Staff Nurses in a Medical Intensive Care Unit. Am. J. Crit. Care 2005, 14, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Deschenes, S.; Gagnon, M.; Park, T.; Kunyk, D. Moral Distress: A Concept Clarification. Nurs. Ethics 2020, 27, 1127–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Villa, G.; Pennestrì, F.; Rosa, D.; Giannetta, N.; Sala, R.; Mordacci, R.; Manara, D.F. Moral Distress in Community and Hospital Settings for the Care of Elderly People. A Grounded Theory Qualitative Study. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Corley, M.C. Nurse Moral Distress: A Proposed Theory and Research Agenda. Nurs. Ethics 2002, 9, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Austin, W.; Lemermeyer, G.; Goldberg, L.; Bergum, V.; Johnson, M.S. Moral Distress in Healthcare Practice: The Situation of Nurses. HEC Forum 2005, 17, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pauly, B.M.; Varcoe, C.; Storch, J. Framing the Issues: Moral Distress in Health Care. HEC Forum 2012, 24, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Lamiani, G.; Borghi, L.; Argentero, P. When Healthcare Professionals Cannot Do the Right Thing: A Systematic Review of Moral Distress and Its Correlates. J. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hamric, A.B. Empirical Research on Moral Distress: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities. HEC Forum 2012, 24, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cavaliere, T.A.; Daly, B.; Dowling, D.; Montgomery, K. Moral Distress in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit RNs. Adv. Neonatal Care 2010, 10, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nathaniel, A.K. Moral Reckoning in Nursing. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2006, 28, 419–438; discussion 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dryden-Palmer, K.; Moore, G.; McNeil, C.; Larson, C.P.; Tomlinson, G.; Roumeliotis, N.; Janvier, A.; Parshuram, C.S.; Program of Wellbeing; Ethical practice and Resilience (POWER) Investigators. Moral Distress of Clinicians in Canadian Pediatric and Neonatal ICUs. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 21, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wilson, M.A. Analysis and Evaluation of the Moral Distress Theory. Nurs. Forum 2018, 53, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McCarthy, J.; Gastmans, C. Moral Distress: A Review of the Argument-Based Nursing Ethics Literature. Nurs. Ethics 2015, 22, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Austin, C.L.; Saylor, R.; Finley, P.J. Moral Distress in Physicians and Nurses: Impact on Professional Quality of Life and Turnover. Psychol. Trauma 2017, 9, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hally, S.M.; Settle, M.; Nelson, B.D. Relationship Between Moral Distress and Intent to Leave a Position Among Neonatal Intensive Care Nurses. Adv. Neonatal. Care 2021, 21, E191–E198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Barr, P. Moral Distress and Considering Leaving in NICU Nurses: Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Mediated by Burnout and the Hospital Ethical Climate. Neonatology 2020, 117, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E. The Measurement of Experienced Burnout. J Organ. Behav. 1981, 2, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Larson, C.P.; Dryden-Palmer, K.D.; Gibbons, C.; Parshuram, C.S. Moral Distress in PICU and Neonatal ICU Practitioners: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 18, e318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prentice, T.; Gillam, L.; Davis, P.G.; Janvier, A. Always a Burden? Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Moral Distress. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018, 103, F441–F445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sundin-Huard, D.; Fahy, K. Moral Distress, Advocacy and Burnout: Theorizing the Relationships. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 1999, 5, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Johnson-Coyle, L.; Opgenorth, D.; Bellows, M.; Dhaliwal, J.; Richardson-Carr, S.; Bagshaw, S.M. Moral Distress and Burnout among Cardiovascular Surgery Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Professionals: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Survey. Can. J. Crit. Care Nurs. 2016, 27, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meltzer, L.; Huckabay, L. Critical Care Nurses’ Perceptions of Futile Care and Its Effect on Burnout. Am. J. Crit. Care 2004, 13, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wagner, C. Moral Distress as a Contributor to Nurse Burnout. Am. J. Nurs. 2015, 115, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fumis, R.R.L.; Junqueira Amarante, G.A.; de Fátima Nascimento, A.; Vieira Junior, J.M. Moral Distress and Its Contribution to the Development of Burnout Syndrome among Critical Care Providers. Ann. Intensive Care 2017, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Dzeng, E.; Wachter, R.M. Ethics in Conflict: Moral Distress as a Root Cause of Burnout. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 409–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. De Boer, J.; van Rosmalen, J.; Bakker, A.B.; van Dijk, M. Appropriateness of Care and Moral Distress among Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Staff: Repeated Measurements. Nurs. Crit. Care 2016, 21, e19–e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Prentice, T.; Janvier, A.; Gillam, L.; Davis, P.G. Moral Distress within Neonatal and Paediatric Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review. Arch. Dis. Child. 2016, 101, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Trotochaud, K.; Coleman, J.R.; Krawiecki, N.; McCracken, C. Moral Distress in Pediatric Healthcare Providers. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2015, 30, 908–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Solomon, M.Z.; Sellers, D.E.; Heller, K.S.; Dokken, D.L.; Levetown, M.; Rushton, C.; Truog, R.D.; Fleischman, A.R. New and Lingering Controversies in Pediatric End-of-Life Care. Pediatrics 2005, 116, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Whitehead, P.B.; Herbertson, R.K.; Hamric, A.B.; Epstein, E.G.; Fisher, J.M. Moral Distress among Healthcare Professionals: Report of an Institution-Wide Survey. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2015, 47, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carnevale, F.A. Moral Distress in the ICU: It’s Time to Do Something about It! Minerva Anestesiol. 2020, 86, 14021–14027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mealer, M.; Moss, M. Moral Distress in ICU Nurses. Intensive Care. Med. 2016, 42, 1615–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Mills, M.; Cortezzo, D.E. Moral Distress in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: What Is It, Why It Happens, and How We Can Address It. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stevens, P.; Hoehn, K.S. Moral Distress, Burnout, and Strikes: What Is the Straw That Breaks the Camel’s Back? Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 21, 391–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dodek, P.M.; Wong, H.; Norena, M.; Ayas, N.; Reynolds, S.C.; Keenan, S.P.; Hamric, A.; Rodney, P.; Stewart, M.; Alden, L. Moral Distress in Intensive Care Unit Professionals Is Associated with Profession, Age, and Years of Experience. J. Crit. Care 2016, 31, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Schaefer, R.; Zoboli, E.L.C.P.; Vieira, M. Identification of Risk Factors for Moral Distress in Nurses: Basis for the Development of a New Assessment Tool. Nurs. Inq. 2016, 23, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Catlin, E.A.; Guillemin, J.H.; Thiel, M.M.; Hammond, S.; Wang, M.L.; O’Donnell, J. Spiritual and Religious Components of Patient Care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Sacred Themes in a Secular Setting. J. Perinatol. 2001, 21, 426–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Barr, P. Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Nurses: Relationships with Moral Distress, Adult Attachment Insecurities, and Proneness to Guilt and Shame. J. Perinat. Med. 2020, 48, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Badolamenti, S.; Fida, R.; Biagioli, V.; Caruso, R.; Zaghini, F.; Sili, A.; Rea, T. Modified Moral Distress Scale (MDS-11): Validation Study Among Italian Nurses. Prof. Inferm. 2017, 70, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lazzarin, M.; Biondi, A.; di Mauro, S. Moral Distress in Nurses in Oncology and Haematology Units. Nurs. Ethics 2012, 19, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lamiani, G.; Setti, I.; Barlascini, L.; Vegni, E.; Argentero, P. Measuring Moral Distress Among Critical Care Clinicians: Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Italian Moral Distress Scale-Revised*. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lusignani, M.; Giannì, M.L.; Re, L.G.; Buffon, M.L. Moral Distress among Nurses in Medical, Surgical and Intensive-Care Units. J. Nurs. Manag. 2017, 25, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Delfrate, F.; Ferrara, P.; Spotti, D.; Terzoni, S.; Lamiani, G.; Canciani, E.; Bonetti, L. Moral Distress (MD) and Burnout in Mental Health Nurses: A Multicenter Survey. Med. Lav. 2018, 109, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sannino, P.; Giannì, M.L.; Carini, M.; Madeo, M.; Lusignani, M.; Bezze, E.; Marchisio, P.; Mosca, F. Moral Distress in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: An Italian Study. Front. Pediatr. 2019, 7, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Grasso, C.; Massidda, D.; Maslak, K.Z.; Favara-Scacco, C.; Grasso, F.A.; Bencivenga, C.; Confalone, V.; Lampugnani, E.; Moscatelli, A.; Somaini, M.; et al. Moral Distress in Healthcare Providers Who Take Care of Critical Pediatric Patients throughout Italy—Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Italian Pediatric Instrument. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Giannetta, N.; Sergi, R.; Villa, G.; Pennestrì, F.; Sala, R.; Mordacci, R.; Manara, D.F. Levels of Moral Distress among Health Care Professionals Working in Hospital and Community Settings: A Cross Sectional Study. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sannino, P.; Giannì, M.L.; Re, L.G.; Lusignani, M. Moral Distress in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An Italian Study. J. Perinatol. 2015, 35, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wixwat, M.; Saucier, G. Being Spiritual but Not Religious. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 40, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.; Leiter, M. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd ed.; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sirigatti, S.; Stefanile, C. Adattamento Italiano MBI–Maslach Burnout Inventory; Organizzazioni Speciali: Firenze, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  59. Epstein, E.G.; Whitehead, P.B.; Prompahakul, C.; Thacker, L.R.; Hamric, A.B. Enhancing Understanding of Moral Distress: The Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 2019, 10, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tajalli, S.; Rostamli, S.; Dezvaree, N.; Shariat, M.; Kadivar, M. Moral Distress among Iranian Neonatal Intensive Care Units’ Health Care Providers: A Multi-Center Cross Sectional Study. J. Med. Ethics Hist. Med. 2021, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pradas-Hernández, L.; Ariza, T.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Albendín-García, L.; de la Fuente, E.I.; Cañadas-De la Fuente, G.A. Prevalence of Burnout in Paediatric Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Crowe, L.; Young, J.; Turner, M.J. What Is the Prevalence and Risk Factors of Burnout among Pediatric Intensive Care Staff (PICU)? A Review. Transl. Pediatr. 2021, 10, 2825–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lazaridou, C.; Agakidou, E.; Diamanti, E.; Agakidis, C. Burnout in Doctors and Nurses Working in Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Units in a General Hospital. Aristotle Univ. Med. J. 2011, 38, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tawfik, D.S.; Sexton, J.B.; Kan, P.; Sharek, P.J.; Nisbet, C.C.; Rigdon, J.; Lee, H.C.; Profit, J. Burnout in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Its Relation to Healthcare-Associated Infections. J. Perinatol. 2017, 37, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Profit, J.; Sharek, P.J.; Amspoker, A.B.; Kowalkowski, M.A.; Nisbet, C.C.; Thomas, E.J.; Chadwick, W.A.; Sexton, J.B. Burnout in the NICU Setting and Its Relation to Safety Culture. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2014, 23, 806–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Jones, G.A.L.; Colville, G.A.; Ramnarayan, P.; Woolfall, K.; Heward, Y.; Morrison, R.; Savage, A.; Fraser, J.; Griksaitis, M.J.; Inwald, D.P. Psychological Impact of Working in Paediatric Intensive Care. A UK-Wide Prevalence Study. Arch. Dis. Child. 2020, 105, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Colville, G.A.; Smith, J.G.; Brierley, J.; Citron, K.; Nguru, N.M.; Shaunak, P.D.; Tam, O.; Perkins-Porras, L. Coping with Staff Burnout and Work-Related Posttraumatic Stress in Intensive Care. Pediatric Crit. Care Med. 2017, 18, e267–e273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dall’Ora, C.; Ball, J.; Reinius, M.; Griffiths, P. Burnout in Nursing: A Theoretical Review. Hum. Resour. Health 2020, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nolan, G.; Dockrell, L.; Crowe, S. Burnout in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit. Curr. Pediatr. Rep. 2020, 8, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Matsuishi, Y.; Mathis, B.J.; Masuzawa, Y.; Okubo, N.; Shimojo, N.; Hoshino, H.; Enomoto, Y.; Inoue, Y. Severity and Prevalence of Burnout Syndrome in Paediatric Intensive Care Nurses: A Systematic Review. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2021, 67, 103082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Buckley, L.; Berta, W.; Cleverley, K.; Medeiros, C.; Widger, K. What Is Known about Paediatric Nurse Burnout: A Scoping Review. Hum. Resour. Health 2020, 18, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dalmolin, G.L.; Lunardi, V.L.; Lunardi, G.L.; Barlem, E.L.D.; da Silveira, R.S. Moral Distress and Burnout Syndrome: Are There Relationships between These Phenomena in Nursing Workers? Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2014, 22, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Rushton, C.H.; Batcheller, J.; Schroeder, K.; Donohue, P. Burnout and Resilience Among Nurses Practicing in High-Intensity Settings. Am. J. Crit. Care 2015, 24, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Severinsson, E. Moral Stress and Burnout: Qualitative Content Analysis. Nurs. Health Sci. 2003, 5, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Shoorideh, F.A.; Ashktorab, T.; Yaghmaei, F.; Alavi Majd, H. Relationship between ICU Nurses’ Moral Distress with Burnout and Anticipated Turnover. Nurs. Ethics 2015, 22, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Özden, D.; Karagözoğlu, Ş.; Yıldırım, G. Intensive Care Nurses’ Perception of Futility: Job Satisfaction and Burnout Dimensions. Nurs. Ethics 2013, 20, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Sajjadi, S.; Norena, M.; Wong, H.; Dodek, P. Moral Distress and Burnout in Internal Medicine Residents. Can. Med. Educ. J. 2017, 8, e36–e43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Kok, N.; van Gurp, J.; van der Hoeven, J.G.; Fuchs, M.; Hoedemaekers, C.; Zegers, M. Complex Interplay between Moral Distress and Other Risk Factors of Burnout in ICU Professionals: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey Study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Langley, G.C.; Kisorio, L.; Schmollgruber, S. Moral Distress Experienced by Intensive Care Nurses. South. Afr. J. Crit. Care 2015, 31, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alazmani-Noodeh, F.; Abdi, K.; Ranjbar, H. The Moderating Effect of Spiritual Beliefs on Job Dissatisfaction Related to the Futile Care. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Soleimani, M.A.; Sharif, S.P.; Yaghoobzadeh, A.; Sheikhi, M.R.; Panarello, B.; Win, M.T.M. Spiritual Well-Being and Moral Distress among Iranian Nurses. Nurs. Ethics 2019, 26, 1101–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kukora, S.K.; Boss, R.D. Values-Based Shared Decision-Making in the Antenatal Period. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018, 23, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Willemse, S.; Smeets, W.; van Leeuwen, E.; Nielen-Rosier, T.; Janssen, L.; Foudraine, N. Spiritual Care in the Intensive Care Unit: An Integrative Literature Research. J. Crit. Care 2020, 57, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lewis, S.L. Emotional Intelligence in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Nurses: Decreasing Moral Distress in End-of-Life Care and Laying a Foundation for Improved Outcomes: An Integrative Review. J. Hosp. Palliat. Nurs. 2019, 21, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Guttmann, K.; Flibotte, J.; Seitz, H.; Huber, M.; DeMauro, S.B. Goals of Care Discussions and Moral Distress Among Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Staff. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2021, 62, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Mills, M.; Cortezzo, D. Expanding Our Understanding of Moral Distress in the NICU. Pediatrics 2021, 148, e2021051029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 08526 g001 550
Figure 1. Correlation between MDS-R and MBI-EE, MBI-DP and MBI-PA scores.
Figure 1. Correlation between MDS-R and MBI-EE, MBI-DP and MBI-PA scores.
Ijerph 19 08526 g001
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Overall
N = 115
Professional category (%)
 Nurses/physiotherapists76 (66.1)
 Physicians35 (30.4)
 Healthcare assistants4 (3.5)
Age group (%)
 21–258 (7.0)
 26–309 (7.8)
 31–3518 (15.7)
 36–4017 (14.8)
 41–4512 (10.4)
 46–5020 (17.4)
 51–5516 (13.9)
 56–6011 (9.6)
 >604 (3.5)
Housing condition = living with other people (%)95 (82.6)
Children = yes (%)72 (62.6)
Religious (%)
 Atheist17 (14.8)
 Non-practicing believer73 (63.5)
 Very religious25 (21.7)
Existential orientation (%)
 Neither religious nor spiritual28 (24.3)
 Spiritual but not religious42 (36.5)
 Religious but not spiritual10 (8.7)
 Both spiritual and religious35 (30.4)
Employment contract = full time (%)109 (94.8)
Years working as healthcare professional (%)
 <515 (13.0)
 5–1023 (20.0)
 11–2029 (25.2)
 >2048 (41.7)
Years working in the NICU (%)
 <534 (29.6)
 5–1017 (14.8)
 11–2030 (26.1)
 >2034 (29.6)
Educational level (%)
 Professional qualification23 (20.0)
 Bachelor’s degree52 (45.2)
 Master’s degree6 (5.2)
 Single-cycle degree34 (29.6)
Left job for reasons not related to MD = yes (%)14 (12.2)
Table
Table 2. Moral Distress and MBI scale scores for nurses/physiotherapists and physicians.
Table 2. Moral Distress and MBI scale scores for nurses/physiotherapists and physicians.
Nurses/PhysiotherapistsPhysiciansp
N = 76N = 35
MDS-R, median [IQR] 4.36 [2.39, 5.64]3.36 [2.68, 4.11]0.257
MBI-EE, median [IQR] 19.00 [12.00, 30.75]19.00 [11.50, 33.50]0.906
MBI-DP, median [IQR] 4.00 [1.00, 8.25]3.00 [1.00, 6.50]0.661
MBI-PA, median [IQR] 35.00 [28.75, 42.25]38.00 [34.00, 41.00]0.265
MBI-EE ≥ 24, N (%)28 (36.8)12 (34.3)0.962
MBI-DP ≥ 9, N (%)19 (25.0)3 (8.6)0.078
MBI-PA ≤ 29, N (%) 25 (32.9)3 (8.6)0.012
Table
Table 3. Associations between sociodemographic variables, professional experience and spirituality with MDS and MBI scales.
Table 3. Associations between sociodemographic variables, professional experience and spirituality with MDS and MBI scales.
MDS-RMBI-EEMBI-DPMBI-PA
B(95%CI)B(95%CI)B(95%CI)B(95%CI)
Professional category
 Nurses/physiotherapists----
 Physicians–0.51 (–1.47–0.45)–0.38 (–5.48–4.72)–0.90 (–2.70–0.89)1.87 (–1.23–4.97)
Age
 Over 40----
 Under 400.48 (–0.41–1.38)–3.35 (–8.05–1.36)1.08 (–0.59–2.75)–1.89 (–4.77–0.99)
Housing condition
 Living alone----
 Living with other people–0.82 (–1.98–0.34)–0.51 (–6.67–5.66)–1.74 (–3.89–0.42)1.64 (–2.12–5.40)
Children
 No----
 Yes–0.61 (–1.53–0.31)1.05 (–3.81 to 5.91)–0.72 (–2.44–1.00)–0.24 (–3.22–2.74)
Religious
 Atheist----
 Non-practicing believer0.39 (–0.89–1.68)–1.23 (–7.96–5.50)–0.67 (–3.04–1.70)–1.04 (–5.15–3.07)
 Very religious0.20 (–1.31–1.70)2.60 (–5.29–10.49)0.99 (–1.79–3.77)–3.21 (–8.03–1.61)
Existential orientation
 Neither religious nor spiritual----
 Spiritual but not religious–0.01 (–1.19–1.17)3.68 (–2.51–9.88)–0.42 (–2.62–1.78)1.29 (–2.51–5.08)
 Religious but not spiritual0.63 (–1.20–2.47)1.30 (–8.33–10.92)–0.33 (–3.75–3.08)–2.15 (–8.04–3.74)
 Both spiritual and religious–0.20 (–1.43–1.02)3.40 (–3.05–9.84)0.63 (–1.66–2.92)0.17 (–3.77–4.12)
Contract of employment
 Part time----
 Full time–1.82 (–3.78–0.14)–3.60 (–14.05–6.86)0.54 (–3.17–4.25)1.53 (–4.88–7.93)
Years as healthcare professional
 <5----
 5–100.43 (–1.15–2.00)6.82 (–1.34–14.98)–0.49 (–3.44–2.46)–3.01 (–8.08–2.05)
 11–20–0.33 (–1.85–1.20)2.60 (–5.32–10.52)–1.01 (–3.87–1.84)–2.50 (–7.41–2.42)
 >20–0.35 (–1.76–1.06)7.21 (–0.10–14.52)–1.23 (–3.87–1.41)–0.86 (–5.40–3.68)
Years working in NICU
 <5----
 5–100.77 (–0.67–2.22)–0.09 (–7.62–7.43)2.62 (0.01–5.24) *–2.16 (–6.82–2.51)
 11–20–0.48 (–1.68–0.71)–3.32 (–9.57–2.92)–1.40 (–3.57–0.76)–0.31 (–4.18–3.57)
 >200.12 (–1.05–1.29)4.00 (–2.10–10.09)–0.88 (–2.99–1.24)1.46 (–2.32–5.24)
Educational level
 Professional qualification----
 Bachelor’s degree–0.60 (–1.82–0.62)–6.15 (–12.68–0.38)–0.46 (–2.79–1.87)–0.20 (–4.05–3.66)
 Master’s degree1.78 (–0.54–4.10)–3.70 (–16.10–8.70)0.95 (–3.47–5.37)–11.15 (–18.48––3.82) **
 Single-cycle degree–0.91 (–2.21–0.40)–4.64 (–11.62–2.35)–1.31 (–3.80–1.18)0.62 (–3.51–4.75)
Left job for reasons not related to MD
 No----
 Yes–0.32 (–1.67–1.03)–1.56 (–8.69–5.57)1.68 (–0.83–4.18)2.68 (–1.66–7.01)
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Multivariate regression model with MDS-R as the dependent variable.
Table 4. Multivariate regression model with MDS-R as the dependent variable.
Coefficient95%CIp-Value
MBI-EE score0.130.06 to 0.210.001
Existential orientation
 Neither religious nor spiritual ---
 Spiritual but not religious 1.77–0.45 to 40.117
 Religious but not spiritual 41.04 to 6.960.009
 Both spiritual and religious 1.69–0.75 to 4.130.172
MBI-DP ≥ 90.79–0.33 to 1.910.165
MBI-EE score × spiritual but not religious–0.1–0.2 to –0.0050.041
MBI-EE score × religious but not spiritual–0.17–0.29 to –0.050.006
MBI-EE score × both spiritual and religious–0.10–0.21 to –0.0010.049
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carletto, S.; Ariotti, M.C.; Garelli, G.; Di Noto, L.; Berchialla, P.; Malandrone, F.; Guardione, R.; Boarino, F.; Campagnoli, M.F.; Savant Levet, P.; et al. Moral Distress and Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148526

AMA Style

Carletto S, Ariotti MC, Garelli G, Di Noto L, Berchialla P, Malandrone F, Guardione R, Boarino F, Campagnoli MF, Savant Levet P, et al. Moral Distress and Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148526

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carletto, Sara, Maria Chiara Ariotti, Giulia Garelli, Ludovica Di Noto, Paola Berchialla, Francesca Malandrone, Roberta Guardione, Floriana Boarino, Maria Francesca Campagnoli, Patrizia Savant Levet, and et al. 2022. "Moral Distress and Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148526

APA Style

Carletto, S., Ariotti, M. C., Garelli, G., Di Noto, L., Berchialla, P., Malandrone, F., Guardione, R., Boarino, F., Campagnoli, M. F., Savant Levet, P., Bertino, E., Ostacoli, L., & Coscia, A. (2022). Moral Distress and Burnout in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148526

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop