Association between moral distress and supporting elements of moral deliberation in nurses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3990.3332Keywords:
Ethics, Nursing Ethics, Decision Making, Moral, Nursing, Psychological StressAbstract
Objective: to identify the association between moral distress and the supporting elements of moral deliberation in Brazilian nurses. Method: a cross-sectional study conducted with Brazilian nurses working in health services at different complexity levels. The research protocol consisted of the Brazilian Scale of Moral Distress in Nurses, a sociodemographic and labor questionnaire, and a list of bases and ethical elements used for moral deliberation. For analysis, descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and Poisson regression were used. Results: 1,226 nurses took part in the study. The 12 elements associated with the moral deliberation process were classified as important for nurses’ actions, especially the professional experience acquired, code of ethics/law of professional practice, and ethical and bioethical principles. The relationship of moral distress showed higher prevalence in the Beliefs, culture and values of the patient, Beliefs and personal values, and Intuition and Subjectivity elements. Conclusion: the results showed a balance between the subjective criteria of professional experience and the objective ones of deontology for moral deliberation.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
