1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic scoping review moral distress amongst medical students

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Characterised by feelings of helplessness in the face of clinical, organization and societal demands, medical students are especially prone to moral distress (MD). Despite risks of disillusionment and burnout, efforts to support them have been limited by a dearth of data and understanding of MD in medical students. Yet, new data on how healthcare professionals confront difficult care situations suggest that MD could be better understood through the lens of the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP). A systematic scoping review (SSR) guided by the RToP is proposed to evaluate the present understanding of MD amongst medical students.

          Methods

          The Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) is adopted to map prevailing accounts of MD in medical students. To enhance the transparency and reproducibility, the SEBA methodology employs a structured search approach, concurrent and independent thematic analysis and directed content analysis (Split Approach), the Jigsaw Perspective that combines complementary themes and categories, and the Funnelling Process that compares the results of the Jigsaw Perspective with tabulated summaries to ensure the accountability of these findings. The domains created guide the discussion.

          Results

          Two thousand six hundred seventy-one abstracts were identified from eight databases, 316 articles were reviewed, and 20 articles were included. The four domains identified include definitions, sources, recognition and, interventions for MD.

          Conclusions

          MD in medical students may be explained as conflicts between the values, duties, and principles contained within the different aspects of their identity. These conflicts which are characterised as disharmony (within) and dyssynchrony (between) the rings of RToP underline the need for personalised and longitudinal evaluations and support of medical students throughout their training. This longitudinal oversight and support should be supported by the host organization that must also ensure access to trained faculty, a nurturing and safe environment for medical students to facilitate speak-up culture, anonymous reporting, feedback opportunities and supplementing positive role modelling and mentoring within the training program.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03515-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references87

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

              Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lalit.radha-krishna@liverpool.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                17 June 2022
                17 June 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 466
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4280.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 6431, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, , National University of Singapore, ; NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, 119228 Singapore, Singapore
                [2 ]GRID grid.410724.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0620 9745, Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, , National Cancer Centre Singapore, ; 11 Hospital Dr, 169610 Singapore, Singapore
                [3 ]GRID grid.4280.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 6431, Medical Library, National University of Singapore libraries, Singapore Blk MD6, Centre, 14 Medical Dr, #05-01 for Translational Medicine, ; Singapore, Singapore
                [4 ]GRID grid.410724.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0620 9745, Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, ; 11 Hospital Dr, Singapore, 169610 Singapore
                [5 ]GRID grid.4280.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 6431, Duke-NUS Medical School, , National University of Singapore, ; Singapore 8 College Rd,, Singapore, 169857 Singapore
                [6 ]GRID grid.10025.36, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative and End of Life Care Centre, Cancer Research Centre, , University of Liverpool, ; 200 London Rd, Liverpool, L3 9TA UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.4280.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 6431, Centre of Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, ; 21 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119077 Singapore
                [8 ]PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, PalC c/o Dover Park Hospice, 10 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308436 Singapore
                Article
                3515
                10.1186/s12909-022-03515-3
                9203147
                35710490
                4b33d8a0-0539-433c-9256-d1c1485291f7
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 31 January 2022
                : 1 June 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Education
                medical students,moral distress,ring theory of personhood (rtop),personhood
                Education
                medical students, moral distress, ring theory of personhood (rtop), personhood

                Comments

                Comment on this article