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.
BackgroundConcepts of moral distress (MD) among physicians have evolved and extend beyond the notion of psychological distress caused by being in a situation in which one is constrained from acting on what one knows to be right. With many accounts involving complex personal, professional, legal, ethical and moral issues, we propose a review of current understanding of MD among physicians.MethodsA systematic evidence-based approach guided systematic scoping review is proposed to map the current concepts of MD among physicians published in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ERIC and Google Scholar databases. Concurrent and independent thematic and direct content analysis (split approach) was conducted on included articles to enhance the reliability and transparency of the process. The themes and categories identified were combined using the jigsaw perspective to create domains that form the framework of the discussion that follows.ResultsA total of 30 156 abstracts were identified, 2473 full-text articles were reviewed and 128 articles were included. The five domains identified were as follows: (1) current concepts, (2) risk factors, (3) impact, (4) tools and (5) interventions.ConclusionsInitial reviews suggest that MD involves conflicts within a physician’s personal beliefs, values and principles (personal constructs) caused by personal, ethical, moral, contextual, professional and sociocultural factors. How these experiences are processed and reflected on and then integrated into the physician’s personal constructs impacts their self-concepts of personhood and identity and can result in MD. The ring theory of personhood facilitates an appreciation of how new experiences create dissonance and resonance within personal constructs. These insights allow the forwarding of a new broader concept of MD and a personalised approach to assessing and treating MD. While further studies are required to test these findings, they offer a personalised means of supporting a physician’s MD and preventing burn-out.
Background: Heralded as a teaching, assessment and reflective tool, and increasingly as a longitudinal and holistic perspective of the educator’s development, medical educator’s portfolios (MEP)s are increasingly employed to evaluate progress, assess for promotions and career switches, used as a reflective tool and as a means of curating educational activities. However, despite its blossoming role, there is significant dissonance in the content and structure of MEPs. As such, a systematic scoping review (SSR) is proposed to identify what is known of MEPs and its contents. Methods: Krishna’s Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) was adopted to structure this SSR in SEBA of MEPs. SEBA’s constructivist approach and relativist lens allow data from a variety of sources to be considered to paint a holistic picture of available information on MEPs. Results: From the 12 360 abstracts reviewed, 768 full text articles were evaluated, and 79 articles were included. Concurrent thematic and content analysis revealed similar themes and categories including: (1) Definition and Functions of MEPs, (2) Implementing and Assessing MEPs, (3) Strengths and limitations of MEPs and (4) electronic MEPs. Discussion: This SSR in SEBA proffers a novel 5-staged evidence-based approach to constructing MEPs which allows for consistent application and assessment of MEPs. This 5-stage approach pivots on assessing and verifying the achievement of developmental milestones or ‘micro-competencies’ that facilitate micro-credentialling and effective evaluation of a medical educator’s development and entrust-ability. This allows MEPs to be used as a reflective and collaborative tool and a basis for career planning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.