Measuring moral distress and moral injury: A systematic review and content analysis of existing scales.

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.

The effect of oral contraceptive use on cortisol reactivity to the Trier Social Stress Test: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some research suggests that oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) blunt the cortisol stress response, thus OCP users are often excluded from stress research. The current study examined changes in salivary cortisol among females taking OCPs and naturally cycling (NC) females after exposure to the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). METHODS: The literature search included the terms "oral contraceptives" OR "oral contraception" OR "birth control" OR "birth control pill" AND "Trier Social Stress Test" OR "TSST" AND "cortisol" OR "salivary cortisol." A total of 14 studies with 36 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis. Participant information, including pre- and post- TSST measures of salivary cortisol, and subgroup (i.e., OCP or menstrual cycle phase), were extracted. Additional study characteristics including age, length of stressor, type of OCP, time of day the cortisol samples were collected, and type of cortisol assay used were also considered. RESULTS: Findings from the current meta-analysis indicated that changes in salivary cortisol in NC participants following the TSST, D = 4.31, SE = 0.53, 95% CI = 3.27, 5.35, were greater than the changes observed in participants on OCPs D = 1.50, SE = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.91, 2.09. Study effects were heterogeneous, Fisher's Z = 10.87, Q = 620.57, p = < 0.001. Between-phase analyses were also conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that OCPs blunt cortisol reactivity relative to NC females. There was significant heterogeneity, except between OCP and follicular phase groups. Implications for research design and methodology are discussed.

Comprehensive meta-analysis of resilience interventions.

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.

The efficacy of stress reappraisal interventions on stress responsivity: A meta-analysis and systematic review of existing evidence.

BACKGROUND: The beliefs we hold about stress play an important role in coping with stressors. Various theoretical frameworks of stress point to the efficacy of reframing stress-related information through brief reappraisal interventions in order to promote adaptive coping. PURPOSE: The goal of the current meta-analysis and systematic review is to substantiate the efficacy of reappraisal interventions on stress responsivity compared to control conditions. Differences in experimental methodologies (e.g., type of stressor used, timing of reappraisal intervention, and content of intervention instructions) will be examined to further delineate their effects on intervention outcomes. METHODS: The literature searches were conducted on May 16, 2018 using PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and PILOTS databases with no date restriction. The search terms included stress, reframing, reappraisal, mindset and reconceptualising. A total of 14 articles with 36 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis, while 22 articles with 46 independent samples were included in the systematic review. Random-effects model was used to test the null hypothesis using two-tailed significance testing. Fisher's Z value was reported for each corresponding test. Heterogeneity tests are reported via Cochran's Q-statistics. RESULTS: Findings from both the meta-analysis and systematic review revealed that overall, reappraisal interventions are effective in attenuating subjective responsivity to stress. Standard differences in means across groups are 0.429 (SE = 0.185, 95% CI = 0.067 to 0.791; z = 2.320, p = .020). However, reappraisal intervention groups did not outperform control groups on measures of physiological stress, with standard differences of -0.084 (SE = 0.135, 95% CI = -0.349 to 0.180; z = -0.627, p = .531). Moderator analysis revealed heterogeneous effects suggesting large variability in findings. CONCLUSIONS: On one hand, findings may suggest a promising avenue for the effective management of self-reported stress and optimization of stress responses. However, more research is needed to better elucidate the effects, if any, of reappraisal interventions on stress physiology. Implications for the use of reappraisal interventions on stress optimization are discussed in the context of theoretical frameworks and considerations for future studies.

Subjective and physiological responses to the 35% carbon dioxide challenge in healthy and non-clinical control populations: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The carbon dioxide (CO2) challenge has been reliably used in laboratory settings as a panicogen in clinical populations. However, the magnitude of these effects on healthy and non-clinical control populations are not clear. The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to provide quantitative estimates of those effects. Specifically, the current paper will evaluate the relative efficacy of the CO2 challenge in eliciting both subjective and physiological arousal in healthy and non-clinical control populations. METHOD: A total of 16 articles with 35 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis, while 37 studies with 74 independent samples were included in the systematic review. RESULTS: Both the meta-analysis and systematic review found the CO2 challenge to elicit an increase in subjective distress via self-reported anxiety and fear. Physiological responses via blood pressure and heart rate were heterogeneous in studies sampled, with no significant changes observed across studies. Moderator analyses revealed the variations in findings may be attributed to participant screening and invasive sampling. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight the CO2 challenge as a useful tool in the provocation of subjective distress. Implications for both the use of the CO2 challenge and its anticipated effects in healthy and non-clinical control populations are discussed.