Caring for patients with multimorbidity: moral distress and life satisfaction among doctors and nurses in Portugal


Abstract

Background. The prevalence of multimorbidity (MM), defined as the co-occurrence of two or more chronic conditions in an individual, presents complex clinical and ethical challenges for healthcare providers (HCPs). In Portugal, nearly half of the general population experiences MM, intensifying demands on HCPs. Doctors and nurses often encounter fragmented care pathways, inadequate guidelines, and frequent ethical dilemmas, which can lead to moral distress (MD). MD arises when HCPs are unable to act in accordance with their ethical beliefs due to institutional barriers, and it has consequences for well-being and employee tenure. This study aims to examine the relationship between MD and life satisfaction among HCPs who regularly care for patients with MM.

Methods. Cross-sectional study surveyed doctors and nurses employed in hospital and non-hospital healthcare facilities in Portugal between August and October 2024. Data were collected using an anonymous electronic questionnaire including validated instruments: the Portuguese version of MMD-HP and the SWLS. Additional s ociodemographic and work-related information was gathered, including sex, age, marital status, professional role, workplace setting, number of years working with patients with MM (professional experience), and the number of patients with MM seen per week (clinical workload) . Associations were examined using linear regression, with the significance level set at 0.05.

Results. A total of 340 HCPs participated, mostly women (83.2%), nurses (66.8%), and professionals with more than 10 years of experience caring for patients with MM (75.6%). The median MD (MMD-HP) score was 128 (Q1, Q3: 73, 182); median life satisfaction (SWLS) score was 24 (Q1, Q3: 18, 28). MD was negatively correlated with life satisfaction , indicating that lower life satisfaction was associated with higher MD . Higher MD levels were observed in HCPs under 35 years compared with those over 50 (p = 0.010). HCPs with more than 10 years of experience caring for patients with MM reported significantly lower MD (p=0.022) . A higher MM-related clinical workload was also associated with greater MD (p=0.003). HCPs currently considering leaving their position due to MD reported significantly higher MD and lower life satisfaction (both p<0.0001). In multivariate analysis, MM-related clinical workload and life satisfaction remained significant predictors of MD.

Discussion. MD among HCPs caring for patients with MM was associated with higher clinical workload and lower life satisfaction. Younger and less experienced professionals appeared particularly vulnerable. The predominance of women and nurses in the sample may limit the generalizability of the findings. The results reinforce concerns about the impact of MD on intentions to leave healthcare positions and emphasize the need for institutional support/interventions that address workload and promote well-being.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].