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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.0%
2
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.6%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.6%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
5
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.7%
8
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
26
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
29
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
30
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%