Back

Individual and system causes of moral distress experienced by public health practitioners in Canada

Bennett, J.; Pakhale, S.; Desmond, N.

2026-06-03 public and global health
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354688 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aims Moral distress has been studied across many health arenas; however, public health has often been overlooked. Canada is facing a healthcare crisis with a significant number of staff leaving the healthcare field. This study explores the experiences of moral distress in public healthcare practitioners across Canada. Better understanding these experiences can provide insights into how to support staff and prevent attrition in public health. Methods This was a cross-sectional qualitative study. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted between May and July 2023, through remote and in person methods. Participants were from nursing, social work, medicine, and dietetics, all working in public health across Canada. Iterative thematic analysis was used. Emergent themes were compared within and across data sets and by participant age and years of experience. Results/Findings Experiences that contributed to moral distress included systemic powerlessness, political and ideological overreach, unethical work environments and undervalued expertise. Years of experience and diversity in gender and ethnicity impacted how practitioners navigated moral distress. Experiences where practitioners felt actions went against their values increased during the pandemic, contributing to moral injury. Conclusions This study situates the unique position of public health within the health system and explores experiences of moral distress both during and outside the COVID-19 pandemic. While the pandemic brought the concept of moral distress to the forefront of many peoples minds, these experiences existed prior. Addressing the underlying causes will contribute to establishing approaches to support public health practitioners suffering from moral distress and injury.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.