Surface and deep causes of moral distress: A qualitative study among healthcare professionals

BackgroundIn the last 40 years, moral distress among nurses and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) has gained considerable attention. Some scholars, including Morley et al., have proposed expanding the definition of moral distress to include distress from moral constraint, conflict, uncertainty, dilemma, and tension; yet debates about this conceptualization persist.Aim of the studyThis study examines whether Morley's moral distress categories effectively capture moral distress experiences among HCPs, with a specific focus on the Italian context.Research designA convenience sample of 20 HCPs from a hospital in Northern Italy participated in semi-structured interviews describing morally distressing situations. Data were analyzed using deductive content analysis based on Morley's framework. As some situations did not fit existing categories, an inductive analysis was also conducted to identify additional moral distress causes.Ethical considerationsThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan (approval no. #48/22) on 30 May 2022.ResultsWe identified 64 morally distressing situations, 41 aligning with Morley's framework (26 constraints, 14 conflict, 1 uncertainty, and 0 dilemmas). Six situations involved multiple causes, while 17 stemmed from a new cause, namely, <i>misconduct</i>. We also found that all identified causes led to moral distress because they implied a <i>perceived violation of professional values and norms</i>. This violation emerged as a necessary condition for moral distress, leading us to develop a multi-layered model positioning violation of professional values and norms as the deep cause of moral distress, with <i>constraint</i>, <i>conflict</i>, <i>uncertainty</i>, and <i>misconduct</i> as surface causes.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that Morley's framework does not fully capture moral distress's complexity. Additional sources of moral distress, such as misconduct, suggest that other triggers may be identified depending on the context. Defining moral distress solely by its surface causes risks fragmenting the concept and overlooking its deeper cause: The perceived violation of professional values and norms that leads to distress.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nursing Ethics
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330261418161
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Surface and deep causes of moral distress: A qualitative study among healthcare professionals

Mario Picozzi, Lidia Borghi, Alessandra Agnese Grossi, Michele Montecalvo et al.
Nursing Ethics
Ethics in medical practice
article

Surface and deep causes of moral distress: A qualitative study among healthcare professionals

Mario Picozzi, Lidia Borghi, Alessandra Agnese Grossi, Michele Montecalvo, Giulia Lamiani, Silvia Ceruti
article en

Abstract

BackgroundIn the last 40 years, moral distress among nurses and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) has gained considerable attention. Some scholars, including Morley et al., have proposed expanding the definition of moral distress to include distress from moral constraint, conflict, uncertainty, dilemma, and tension; yet debates about this conceptualization persist.Aim of the studyThis study examines whether Morley's moral distress categories effectively capture moral distress experiences among HCPs, with a specific focus on the Italian context.Research designA convenience sample of 20 HCPs from a hospital in Northern Italy participated in semi-structured interviews describing morally distressing situations. Data were analyzed using deductive content analysis based on Morley's framework. As some situations did not fit existing categories, an inductive analysis was also conducted to identify additional moral distress causes.Ethical considerationsThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan (approval no. #48/22) on 30 May 2022.ResultsWe identified 64 morally distressing situations, 41 aligning with Morley's framework (26 constraints, 14 conflict, 1 uncertainty, and 0 dilemmas). Six situations involved multiple causes, while 17 stemmed from a new cause, namely, <i>misconduct</i>. We also found that all identified causes led to moral distress because they implied a <i>perceived violation of professional values and norms</i>. This violation emerged as a necessary condition for moral distress, leading us to develop a multi-layered model positioning violation of professional values and norms as the deep cause of moral distress, with <i>constraint</i>, <i>conflict</i>, <i>uncertainty</i>, and <i>misconduct</i> as surface causes.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that Morley's framework does not fully capture moral distress's complexity. Additional sources of moral distress, such as misconduct, suggest that other triggers may be identified depending on the context. Defining moral distress solely by its surface causes risks fragmenting the concept and overlooking its deeper cause: The perceived violation of professional values and norms that leads to distress.

Nursing Ethics
University of Insubria (IT), AOL (United States) (US), University of Milan (IT)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Ethics in medical practice
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.