Search

Background: Moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI) are related constructs describing the negative consequences of morally challenging stressors. Despite growing support for the clinical relevance of these constructs, ongoing challenges regarding measurement quality risk limiting research and clinical advances. This study summarizes the nature, quality, and utility of existing MD and MI scales, and provides recommendations for future use., Method: We identified psychometric studies describing the development or validation of MD or MI scales and extracted information on methodological and psychometric qualities. Content analyses identified specific outcomes measured by each scale., Results: We reviewed 77 studies representing 42 unique scales. The quality of psychometric approaches varied greatly across studies, and most failed to examine convergent and divergent validity. Content analyses indicated most scales measure exposures to potential moral stressors and outcomes together, with relatively few measuring only exposures (n = 3) or outcomes (n = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes., Conclusions: Results show how the terms MD and MI are applied in research. Several scales were identified as appropriate for research and clinical use. Recommendations for the application, development, and validation of MD and MI scales are provided., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background/rationale: There is no current consensus on operational definitions of resilience. Instead, researchers often debate the optimal approach to understanding resilience, while continuing to explore ways to enhance and/or promote its qualities in various populations. The goal of the current meta-analysis is to substantiate existing evidence examining the promotion of resilience through various interventions. Particular emphasis was placed upon the factors that contribute to variability across interventions, such as age, gender, duration of intervention, intervention approaches and risk exposure of targeted population., Method: The literature search was conducted on May 28, 2019. Search terms included "resilience intervention" OR "promoting resilience" OR "promoting resiliency" OR "resilience-based intervention". A total of 268 studies, with 1584 independent samples, were included in the meta-analysis. In addition to overall efficacy, outcome-based analyses were conducted for intervention outcomes based on action, biophysical, coping, emotion, resilience, symptoms, and well-being. Finally, moderators of age, gender, length of intervention, intervention approach, intervention target, and the level of risk exposure of the sampled population were examined as moderators., Results: The multi-level meta-analysis indicated that resilience-promoting interventions yielded a small, but statistically significant overall effect, Hedges's g = 0.48 (SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.40, 0.56]. The variability in study effect sizes within and between studies was significant, p < .001, with many falling short of the threshold for practical significance., Discussion: Findings lend some support for the overall efficacy of resilience interventions. However, empirical results should be cautiously interpreted in tandem with their theoretical relevance and potential advancements to the construct of resilience. Variabilities across findings reflect the current ambiguities surrounding the conceptualization and operationalization of resilience. Directions for future research on resilience as well as practical considerations are discussed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)