Scholarlink

Background <p>Moral distress, or the inability to carry out what one believes to be ethically appropriate because of constraints or barriers, is understudied in obstetrics and gynecology. We sought to characterize moral distress among Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellows using a standardized survey.</p> Methods <p>We disseminated a national anonymized survey study of MFM fellows electronically regarding moral distress using a validated questionnaire with supplemental questions pertaining to specific challenges within MFM clinical care. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine the association between abortion restrictions, maternal mortality, and moral distress, controlling for demographic variables. Thematic analysis was performed for the free text responses elaborating upon moral distress and grouped by thematic elements. We hypothesized that training in states with more abortion restrictions and higher maternal mortality would be associated with higher moral distress scores.</p> Results <p>Among 245 total responses (61% response rate), 177 complete responses (44% complete response rate) were included for analysis. Most of our respondents identified as female (78.5%), White (71.8%), and training in urban programs (83.1%). 37.9% of respondents reported training in the Northeast, with the remainder of respondents evenly distributed across the United States. The mean score for the validated questions was 85.9 <i>±</i> 48.8, with female gender identity associated with higher measures of moral distress on the validated portion of the questionnaire as compared to male gender identity (90.1 <i>±</i> 49.2 vs. 70.4 <i>±</i> 44.7, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), whereas more advanced training was associated with higher measures of moral distress on the supplemental questions as compared to those less advanced in training (20.9 <i>±</i> 11.8 vs. 28.5 <i>±</i> 15.9 vs. 25.9 <i>±</i> 15.6 for PGY-5 vs. PGY-6 vs. PGY-7 and PGY-8 combined, respectively, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). After adjustment, higher measure of moral distress on the validated questionnaire was associated with training in states designated “Abortion restrictive” as compared to “Abortion most protective” (beta estimate 27.80 and <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Of 34 free responses, 65% referred to limitations on abortion access and reproductive justice as causes of significant moral distress.</p> Conclusion <p>MFM fellows who identify as female reported higher measures of moral distress, as well as those training in states with more abortion restrictions. Among free text respondents, abortion restrictions underlie a significant proportion of moral distress.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Moral distress among maternal-fetal medicine fellows: a national survey study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月28日

查看全文
  • Jia Jennifer Ding,
  • Thi Vu,
  • Suzanne Stammler,
  • Peter Murray,
  • Elizabeth Epstein,
  • Sarah N. Cross

摘要

Background

Moral distress, or the inability to carry out what one believes to be ethically appropriate because of constraints or barriers, is understudied in obstetrics and gynecology. We sought to characterize moral distress among Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellows using a standardized survey.

Methods

We disseminated a national anonymized survey study of MFM fellows electronically regarding moral distress using a validated questionnaire with supplemental questions pertaining to specific challenges within MFM clinical care. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine the association between abortion restrictions, maternal mortality, and moral distress, controlling for demographic variables. Thematic analysis was performed for the free text responses elaborating upon moral distress and grouped by thematic elements. We hypothesized that training in states with more abortion restrictions and higher maternal mortality would be associated with higher moral distress scores.

Results

Among 245 total responses (61% response rate), 177 complete responses (44% complete response rate) were included for analysis. Most of our respondents identified as female (78.5%), White (71.8%), and training in urban programs (83.1%). 37.9% of respondents reported training in the Northeast, with the remainder of respondents evenly distributed across the United States. The mean score for the validated questions was 85.9 ± 48.8, with female gender identity associated with higher measures of moral distress on the validated portion of the questionnaire as compared to male gender identity (90.1 ± 49.2 vs. 70.4 ± 44.7, p < 0.05), whereas more advanced training was associated with higher measures of moral distress on the supplemental questions as compared to those less advanced in training (20.9 ± 11.8 vs. 28.5 ± 15.9 vs. 25.9 ± 15.6 for PGY-5 vs. PGY-6 vs. PGY-7 and PGY-8 combined, respectively, p < 0.05). After adjustment, higher measure of moral distress on the validated questionnaire was associated with training in states designated “Abortion restrictive” as compared to “Abortion most protective” (beta estimate 27.80 and p < 0.01). Of 34 free responses, 65% referred to limitations on abortion access and reproductive justice as causes of significant moral distress.

Conclusion

MFM fellows who identify as female reported higher measures of moral distress, as well as those training in states with more abortion restrictions. Among free text respondents, abortion restrictions underlie a significant proportion of moral distress.