Frontiers in psychology · 2026
Moral distress among healthcare professionals: Italian validation of the Moral Distress-Appraisal Scale.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maffoni Marina, Borghi Lidia, Lamiani Giulia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Moral distress impacts healthcare professionals' well-being, yet current measurement tools often rely on specific clinical scenarios, limiting their applicability. This study aimed to validate the Italian version of the Moral Distress-Appraisal Scale (MD-APPS), a context-independent instrument to assess the subjective appraisal of moral distress.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional validation study was conducted. 205 professionals caring for patients with oncological and chronic-degenerative diseases across different settings were enrolled. The sample was randomly split to perform Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses.
RESULTS: Participants reported a mean MD-APPS total score of 1.85 (SD = 0.76) (scale range 1-6). The analysis supported a robust two-factor structure consistent with the original framework: Support and Freedom (Factor 1), Hindrance and Coercion (Factor 2). The scale demonstrated satisfactory model fit indices [ χ 2 ( 15 ) = 11.0 , p = 0.756 ; SRMR = 0.039; RMSEA = 0.000 (90% CI: 0.000-0.067); CFI = 1.000; and TLI = 1.003] and adequate internal consistency (Factor 1, α = 0.82, ω = 0.83; Factor 2 α = 0.75, ω = 0.80; Total scale: α = 0.84; ω = 0.85). Convergent and divergent validity were substantiated through positive correlations with the Moral Distress Scale-Revised and the Burnout dimension of the Professional Quality of Life scale, and a negative correlation with Compassion Satisfaction dimension of the same scale.
DISCUSSION: The Italian MD-APPS appears a valid, reliable, and rapid-to-administer tool. By focusing on clinicians' appraisals of moral distress, the MD-APPS is consistent with emerging definitions of moral distress (i.e., perceived violations of professional values or norms). Although further research is warranted, the MD-APPS holds promise as a suitable tool for diverse healthcare contexts and professional sectors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional validation study was conducted. 205 professionals caring for patients with oncological and chronic-degenerative diseases across different settings were enrolled. The sample was randomly split to perform Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses.
RESULTS: Participants reported a mean MD-APPS total score of 1.85 (SD = 0.76) (scale range 1-6). The analysis supported a robust two-factor structure consistent with the original framework: Support and Freedom (Factor 1), Hindrance and Coercion (Factor 2). The scale demonstrated satisfactory model fit indices [ χ 2 ( 15 ) = 11.0 , p = 0.756 ; SRMR = 0.039; RMSEA = 0.000 (90% CI: 0.000-0.067); CFI = 1.000; and TLI = 1.003] and adequate internal consistency (Factor 1, α = 0.82, ω = 0.83; Factor 2 α = 0.75, ω = 0.80; Total scale: α = 0.84; ω = 0.85). Convergent and divergent validity were substantiated through positive correlations with the Moral Distress Scale-Revised and the Burnout dimension of the Professional Quality of Life scale, and a negative correlation with Compassion Satisfaction dimension of the same scale.
DISCUSSION: The Italian MD-APPS appears a valid, reliable, and rapid-to-administer tool. By focusing on clinicians' appraisals of moral distress, the MD-APPS is consistent with emerging definitions of moral distress (i.e., perceived violations of professional values or norms). Although further research is warranted, the MD-APPS holds promise as a suitable tool for diverse healthcare contexts and professional sectors.