
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132
PONE-D-24-17880
Research Article
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Infectious Diseases
Viral Diseases
Covid 19
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Pandemics
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Policy
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
People and places
Geographical locations
North America
Canada
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Psychological Stress
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Psychological Stress
Social Sciences
Psychology
Psychological Stress
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Moral distress related to paid and unpaid care among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
Pandemic Care: Moral Distress
Smith Julia Conceptualization Funding acquisition Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1344-6565
Tiwana Muhammad Haaris Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
Murage Alice Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 1
Samji Hasina Writing – review & editing 1
Morgan Rosemary Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7051-6481
Delgado-Ron Jorge Andres Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
2 Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
Botero Carvajal Alejandro Editor
Universidad Santiago de Cali, COLOMBIA
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: mhtiwana@sfu.ca
10 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03101326 5 2024
23 8 2024
© 2024 Smith et al
2024
Smith et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

While there is growing literature on experiences of healthcare workers and those providing unpaid care during COVID-19, little research considers the relationships between paid and unpaid care burdens and contributions. We administered a moral distress survey to healthcare workers in Canada, in 2022, collecting data on both paid and unpaid care. There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants providing unpaid care by gender, with both genders equally affected by certain responsibilities such as reduced contact with family/loved ones. However, men were significantly more distressed about specific unpaid care responsibilities. Unpaid care was not significantly associated with differences in intention to leave work. At work, women were significantly more concerned about patients unable to see family, while men were distressed by others mistreating COVID patients. This study enhances understanding of paid and unpaid care relationships, particularly during crises, and proposes an innovative method for assessing unpaid care burdens.

Canadian Institute for Health Research 483891 This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) URL: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html through grant number 483891 received by JS. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, nor in the decision to publish the results. Data AvailabilityThe de-identified dataset is available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository, available from the following: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4VXGE
OutbreaksCOVID-19
Data Availability

The de-identified dataset is available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository, available from the following: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4VXGE
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a dual crisis in the care economy—demands on healthcare workers increased, as did demands on those providing unpaid caregiving within the home and community. The immediate effects of this dual crisis are well-documented [1–3]. Healthcare workers experienced a greater risk of COVID-19 infection and secondary health effects amidst the crisis, such as anxiety and depression [4]. Those providing unpaid care (both health and non-health related) also saw work burdens increase due to service interruptions and isolation requirements, thereby impairing their mental health, resulting in economic and employment loss, and reduced educational opportunities for their dependents [5–7]. These crises were gendered; women make up 70 percent of the healthcare workforce around the world and do two-to-three times more unpaid care work than men [8]. In several contexts, women healthcare workers were more likely to contract COVID-19, partly due to the type of occupations they are most likely to fill in the health system, which involve direct and prolonged contact with patients [9].

While policy and scholarship often position unpaid care as independent from paid healthcare provision—for example, by focusing on benefits and training for paid care workers and not family carers—feminist care economy research has shown that both forms of care depend on each other [10]. Unpaid care refers to rendering caregiving, support, or assistance to those within one’s social sphere ‐ including family, friends, and community members ‐ without compensation [11]. Unpaid caregivers provide essential day-to-day support, assisting with tasks that might not be covered by formal healthcare systems, such as personal care, companionship, and basic medical tasks. This informal caregiving sector is estimated to equal around 9% of the global gross domestic product. For instance, in Canada, this equates to 5 billion dollars of paid labour every year [12, 13]. Other forms of care, such as child and elder care, provide essential labour for the health and development of others. Such provision enables other workers, including healthcare workers, to participate in paid labour. The crisis in the care economy caused by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic provided a critical opportunity to explore the relationship between paid and unpaid care under systemic constraints. However, little research considers both the increased workload of healthcare workers and the burden of unpaid care during the pandemic in tandem, and more so under a feminist lens.

The COVID-19 pandemic also reinvigorated research into moral distress among healthcare workers. Moral distress, a concept that developed first in the nursing literature, aims to elucidate how structural constraints impose ethical dilemmas on healthcare workers, with negative impacts not only on care provision but also on the wellbeing and retention of healthcare workers [14]. While there is some debate about definitions and approaches to moral distress, here we define it as “the psychological unease or distress that occurs when one witnesses, does things or fails to do things that contradict deeply held moral and ethical beliefs and expectations.”” [15]. High levels of moral distress are associated with poor mental and physical health, as well as burnout and attrition [16, 17]. Research on moral distress during the first three years of the COVID-19 pandemic documented sources of moral distress related to the shift from patient-centred to public health-focused approaches, a lack of resources that limited workers’ capacity to provide high-quality care, and negative effect of enforced restrictions on the perceived quality of care [18, 19]. These sources of moral distress are associated with increased stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, feelings of helplessness, and levels of empathy among healthcare workers [20]. While these outcomes may have multiple influencing factors, the inability to act ethically has been associated with impaired mental health, burnout, and attrition. Consequently, understanding the significance and contributors to moral distress is vital not only for supporting the well-being of care providers, but also for the overall quality and effectiveness of care delivery.

Despite numerous studies on moral distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and literature on unpaid care burdens during the pandemic, there appears to be little research on the intersection between moral distress and unpaid care work. In a qualitative research study with 88 women healthcare workers conducted in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada between December 2020 and March 2021, Smith and colleagues [21] found multiple and complex expressions of moral distress in response to paid and unpaid care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants expressed moral distress not only in response to their professional obligations, but also when reflecting on unpaid caregiving, such as child and elder care, and due to the conflict of managing both professional and personal care responsibilities during the pandemic [21]. Select studies have found a relationship between being a parent or having dependents, and professional moral distress, but do not explore this relationship [22]. To our knowledge, there are no previous quantitative studies specifically on moral distress related to unpaid caregiving. Consequently, while there are numerous validated scales for assessing degree and sources of moral distress related to paid care work, there are no standard scales for measuring moral distress experiences related to unpaid care, likely due to a heightened focus on the workplace as a place of systemic constraints.

Recognizing that gender roles and social policies also create systemic constraints on unpaid care, this paper seeks to explore the concept of moral distress as applied to both paid and unpaid caregiving during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. We apply the concept of moral distress, drawing on survey data with 2349 healthcare workers (physicians, nurses, homecare aids, and long-term care aids) in B.C., Canada, to examine how healthcare workers were affected by changes in both paid and unpaid care work, and explore the relationship between these experiences. We analyze our results by gender, an approach limited in the extant literature, as shown by a recent scoping review [23]. We specifically analyze gender differences in degree and source of moral distress related to both unpaid and paid care and explore the relationships between these. Through this research, we aim to not only advance research on moral distress in terms of gender analysis and a focus on unpaid care, but also research aimed at documenting the scale and effects of unpaid care burdens. Findings offer insights to guide gender sensitive policies that support care providers at work and home, during and following health crises.

Context

This study was based in B.C., Canada where approximately 375,400 cases and 4,806 COVID-19-related deaths were recorded by the end of 2022 (when we completed data collection) [24, 25]. The majority outbreaks and deaths occurred in health or long-term care (LTC) facilities [26]. Pre-COVID-19, many healthcare workers already worked in environments where external constraints—related to public funding restrictions and the marketization of care over the past three decades—restricted their ability to provide quality care [27, 28]. Social policy in Canada has also failed to keep up with demand for paid childcare and eldercare, resulting in continued reliance on unpaid caregivers [29–31]. In this context, women remain the primary care providers within households and families, doing two to three times more unpaid care work than men, as gender norms continue to position unpaid care as women’s responsibility [8]. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, unpaid care responsibilities forced a disproportionate number of women, compared to men, out of paid work as they filled gaps caused by school, childcare, and service interruptions. For example, women made up over 90% of those who left work in the health and social care sector, in Canada, during the first three months of the pandemic [32]. Subsequent temporary closures and isolation periods continued to impose heightened unpaid care burdens throughout the pandemic. Attesting to the fact that women were more likely to take on the bulk of care responsibilities for dependents created by schooling and service interruptions [7], affecting their mental well-being, leading to economic setbacks, job losses, and diminished educational prospects for those they supported [5, 6]. As this context is not unique to high-income liberal democracies that experienced ongoing waves of COVID-19 infection, and implemented moderate containment strategies, findings from this case study may point to similar trends elsewhere, though case study specific research is required to understand contextual differences.

Methods

Positionality

We come to this topic as a diverse group of researchers with our own past experiences providing paid and unpaid caregiving, as well as of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognize this positionality influences our analysis, particularly in terms of the power we hold as researchers analyzing data that others have generously provided. Though we are a diverse group—in terms of gender, age, race, and ethnicity—we are all privileged in terms of educational attainment and employment. As such, we are at risk of the privilege hazard of not being best positioned to understand the challenges experienced or solutions to them [33]. We have aimed to mitigate this by sharing preliminary research findings with participants to ensure our analysis aligns with their experiences, inviting feedback, and contextualizing findings within the broader context of gender inequities in Canada.

Sample and data collection

Details about recruitment have been described elsewhere [34]. The study was approved by the Simon Fraser University (SFU) Research Ethics Board (#30001218). In short, we administered an online questionnaire via ‘SurveyMonkey’ to a convenience sample of physicians, nurses, home and community care providers, and long-term care providers working in B.C., Canada [34, 35]. We recruited through email and social media via work unions, such as the Hospital Employees Union, and occupational organizations, such as SafeCare BC. Prior to participation, written consent was obtained from all participants at the onset of the survey. Only those who provided consent were eligible to proceed with completing the survey. We collected sociodemographic data and information about experiences of COVID-specific moral distress and unpaid care work moral distress during the last quarter of 2022, specifically between 3rd October and 30th December 2022, asking participants to reflect on experiences over the past year (since October 2021). Among the 2,918 healthcare workers who provided full outcome data, 2,349 answered the question, ‘Do you provide care to relatives or friends (children, seniors, those with disability or chronic illness) at home or in your community (i.e., outside of work)? Yes/No.’ Given the study’s focus on moral distress emanating from both paid and unpaid care work, the main analyses were conducted on this subset of the participants performing care at the workplace (paid care) and at home or the community (unpaid care). Respondents were allowed to skip questions to mitigate forced recollection of uncomfortable or distressing experiences.

Item development: Moral distress at the workplace (paid) and specific to unpaid care in the home or community

Items for the survey were developed by bringing together findings from previous qualitative research and a literature review, together with existing moral distress survey items. From 2020 to 2022, some of the authors conducted qualitative research with healthcare workers in BC, through which they identified themes related to moral distress in response to paid and unpaid care [21]. We then conducted a scoping review of moral distress literature that included gender analysis and/or unpaid care (we found no papers on unpaid care) [23]. With findings from this previous research as well as the objectives of the study in mind, we reviewed existing moral distress surveys to identify items that could be adopted or adapted to answer our research questions related to moral distress during COVID-19 and in response to unpaid care. For example, we adopted seven items from the COVID-19 specific scale developed by Cramer & colleagues that also corresponded to findings from our previous qualitative research [36]. As we found no existing tools related to moral distress in response to unpaid care, items from the revised Moral Distress Scale (MDS-R) that corresponded with themes from previous qualitative research were adopted [37]. For example, as previous research on unpaid care included expressions of distress in response to having to care for children or older adults with special needs when home or school care was not available [21], we adapted the MDS-R question “Be required to care for patients I don’t feel qualified to care for,” to “I was required to care for dependents whom I do not feel qualified to care for”. Similarly, “Watch patient care suffer because of lack of provider continuity” became “Witnessed my dependents’ health suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services.” In selecting questions, we were mindful of the length of the survey and so only selected those directly related to studies objectives. This was a dialectic process that included multiple discussion among the project team, revisiting previous research and reviewing multiple tools. Through this process we developed two sets of items for this study: unpaid caregiving at home/community and caregiving at the workplace, both occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The scales resembled the structure of the original moral distress scale, with two components for each item: frequency (valued 0 to 4) and intensity (0 to 4). When multiplied, the components generate an item score (0 to 16). The sum of the seven items on each scale constitutes the total score for moral distress (0 to 112). The total scores, while related, were kept as two separate constructs for analytical purposes. Both questionnaires were piloted with nine respondents to assess readability, including some whose first language was not English.

Descriptive statistics

We estimated counts and proportions of those who did and did not provide care outside of work to identify significant differences among these two groups by: age (Under 30, 30–39, 40–49, and 50+), gender (men and women), race (Indigenous, White, and Persons of Colour), profession (physicians, nurses, home and community care providers, and long-term care providers), intention to leave work (no, considered leaving, left), and the mean level of moral distress. We define race as a social construct based on historical and ongoing ideological categorization based of individual physical characteristics, most notably skin colour. This construct has real consequences on lived experiences due to systemic racism (differential distribution of public resources) and interpersonal racism. In consideration of racialization in the Canadian context, we include in our analysis three racial categories: Indigenous people, White people, and Persons of Colour. The latter represent people who self-identified as non-White. Gender is often conflated with biological sex. We define gender as socially constructed roles, behaviours, and attributes. In the survey, participants could choose one or more of the following gender-related identities: woman, man, two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, man, and other. In this analysis, we utilize data of those who identified either as woman or man due to sample limitation. We used the chi-square test and the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons with an alpha level of 0.05 for categorical variables and the ANOVA for moral distress scores.

Gender differences in moral distress at the workplace (paid) and (unpaid) at home/community

We created box plots to explore the variance of independent components of moral distress in response to care responsibilities at the workplace (paid) and in the home or community (unpaid). We examined differences in moral distress across groups through permutation tests to accommodate for potential skewness or outliers in our data. We utilized both mean and median as central tendency measures and 10,000 permutations per variable. Differences were considered significant if either measure of central tendency was below 0.05. Because we anticipated that gender influenced potential confounding effects of profession and age, we fitted an ANCOVA model that included these variables plus gender as predictors and the total score for items as the outcome. Subsequently, we computed the marginal mean scores and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, using the ‘emmeans’ R package, to obtain unbiased gender estimates of the total workplace (paid) and home/community (unpaid) care score.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

The EFA was used to explore the relationship between the two constructs represented by the total scores of home/community care moral distress and workplace moral distress. We used the ‘psych’ R package to run an EFA. First, we tested the sample adequacy through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Values above 0.6 and below 0.05, respectively, were deemed appropriate. A correlation matrix was created to explore collinearity. Then, we conducted a parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to retain in the EFA with oblique (‘oblimin’) rotation. Factor loadings were prespecified with 0.3 (minimum) and 0.4 (moderate) thresholds. The latter was used to assign constructs to each factor.

Results

Correlates of home and community unpaid care among healthcare workers

The prevalence of unpaid care in the sample was 43.8% (n = 1028). We did not find significant differences in the provision of unpaid care (yes vs. no) by gender or age. The proportion of home and community care providers (10.0%) was slightly higher among those who performed unpaid care compared to those who did not (6.9%; p-value = 0.05). Similarly, the proportion of non-Indigenous participants identifying as Person of Colour (POC) among unpaid care providers was significantly higher compared to the group that did not care for others without compensation (34.7% vs. 20.7%; p < 0.001). Conversely, the proportions of Indigenous (9% vs. 14.7%) and White participants (56.3% vs. 64.5%) providing unpaid care was significantly lower (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Those who provided unpaid care had significantly higher mean moral distress levels related to paid care work (37.87 ± 24.49 SD) compared to those who were solely paid carers (34.72 ± 24.25 SD; p = 0.002). Overall, unpaid care was not significantly associated with differences in intention to leave work.

Gender differences related to home and community unpaid care

Table 1 shows the characteristics of workers who performed both paid and unpaid care, stratified by gender. These subsamples were heterogeneous in terms of age, race, and profession. While the mean levels of moral distress at the workplace were higher for women, the mean score for unpaid care distress was higher for men (Table 1). Once the mean score was adjusted by profession and age, women’s unpaid care distress score (41.5; 95% CI: 38.7 to 44.3) remained lower than that of men (45.5; 95% CI: 41.2 to 49.8), but the difference was no longer statistically significant.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.t001 Table 1 Characteristics of workers who provided caregiving both in the workplace (paid) and at home or in their community (unpaid), stratified by gender.

	Men	Women	
n = 144	n = 689	
Profession (%)			
 Home and Community care provider	44 (30.6)	42 (6.1)	
 Long-term care provider	44 (30.6)	511 (74.2)	
 Nurse	6 (4.2)	102 (14.8)	
 Physician	50 (34.7)	34 (4.9)	
Age (%)			
 Under 30	14 (9.7)	164 (23.9)	
 30–39	64 (44.4)	214 (31.1)	
 40–49	58 (40.3)	182 (26.5)	
 50+	8 (5.6)	127 (18.5)	
POC (%)			
 Indigenous	30 (20.8)	47 (6.9)	
 POC	17 (11.8)	170 (24.9)	
 White	97 (67.4)	467 (68.3)	
Unpaid care score (mean (S.D.))	44.94 (25.60)	38.60 (24.35)	
Workplace distress score (mean (S.D.))	38.60 (21.91)	41.96 (24.84)	
POC: Person of colour; SD: Standard deviation.

In terms of sources of moral distress, the component analysis showed that both genders were equally affected by having reduced contact with family and loved ones to reduce the risk of COVID transmission (the highest burden for both groups), and by the lack of time to provide the physical and emotional care and educational or other developmental support their dependents needed. Men were significantly more distressed when (a) they were required to care for dependents whom they did not feel qualified to care for, (b) their obligations to care for dependent(s) with COVID transmission risk, indirectly extended the risk of transmission to patients/residents, and when they (c) witnessed their dependents’ health, (d) education, or overall development suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services, including school (Fig 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.g001 Fig 1 Box plots of items for unpaid care distress at home or the community by gender.

Gender differences related to moral distress at the workplace

Compared to men, women were significantly more concerned about caring for patients/residents who could not see their family or friends while in the facility (their main concern), followed by caring for patients who presented transmission risk to their dependents. The latter was the main concern for men, although women had significantly higher mean scores with no significant differences in median scores. Men were significantly more distressed by working with team members who did not treat those with COVID with dignity and respect. Both genders were equally distressed by the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) or cleaning supplies to avoid COVID transmission at work, the pressure to order or carry out COVID-related protocols that they considered unnecessary or inappropriate, and to overemphasize COVID related policies at the expense of patient care. Some women were more distressed by caring for patients/residents who died while in hospital/care without family, friends and/or clergy present, which is reflected in higher means but no difference in median scores (Fig 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.g002 Fig 2 Box plots of items for COVID-specific distress at the workplace by gender.

Exploratory factor analysis

The KMO values ranged from 0.84 to 0.92, with an overall value of 0.88. The p-value for the Barlett test was <0.001 and the determinant of the correlation matrix was 0.006. Therefore, EFA was deemed appropriate. The parallel analysis resulted in 5 factors. Table 2 shows the results of the EFA:

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.t002 Table 2 Results of exploratory factor analysis.

Original group	Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	
PAID CARE	Have not had access to PPE or cleaning supplies I feel necessary to avoid COVID transmission at work	0.14	0.53	0.06	-0.15	0.31	
PAID CARE	Cared for patients/residents who are prevented from seeing family or friends while in the facility	0.05	0.69	0.07	0.03	-0.15	
PAID CARE	Cared for patients/residents who die while in hospital/care without family, friends and/or clergy present.	-0.01	0.77	0.00	0.03	0.07	
PAID CARE	Cared for patients who present transmission risk to my dependents.	0.08	0.35	0.22	0.30	-0.19	
PAID CARE	Felt pressured to order or carry out COVID-related protocols that I consider to be unnecessary or inappropriate.	0.07	0.02	0.72	-0.07	-0.05	
PAID CARE	Worked with team members who do not treat those with COVID with dignity and respect.	-0.16	0.19	0.33	0.13	0.28	
PAID CARE	Felt required to overemphasize COVID related policies at the expense of patient care.	-0.03	0.02	0.78	0.02	0.02	
UNPAID CARE	Lacked the time to provide the physical and emotional care my dependents need	0.82	0.04	0.00	0.03	-0.08	
UNPAID CARE	Lacked the time to provide the educational or other developmental support my dependents need	0.75	0.02	0.04	-0.03	0.14	
UNPAID CARE	Was required to care for dependents whom I do not feel qualified to care for.	0.12	0.04	0.07	0.17	0.60	
UNPAID CARE	Witnessed my dependents’ health suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services	0.31	-0.09	0.14	0.35	0.12	
UNPAID CARE	Witnessed my dependents education or overall development suffer due to interruptions in schooling/services.	0.29	-0.11	0.29	0.26	0.08	
UNPAID CARE	Cared for dependent(s) with COVID transmission risk, indirectly extending transmission risk to patients/residents	0.00	0.01	0.09	0.59	0.26	
UNPAID CARE	Reduced contact with my family and loved ones to reduce risk of transmission of COVID	0.25	0.22	-0.07	0.46	-0.15	
	Sum of squares	1.87	1.80	1.73	1.23	0.85	
	Proportion of variance	13%	13%	12%	9%	6%	
	Cumulative variance	13%	26%	38%	47%	53%	
Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.958. RMSEA index = 0. BIC = -111.5

Most factors loaded independently in subgroups that belonged to the original groupings; factor 1 (“lack of time”), 4 (“transmission concerns”) and 5 (“feeling unqualified”) for unpaid care items and factors 2 (“Lack of PPE and patient isolation”) and 3 (“inappropriate protocols”) for workplace items. Caring for patients who presented transmission risk to the healthcare workers’ dependents cross-loaded on factors 2 and 4, whereas witnessing the impact of inadequate professional care or the interruption of services on their dependent’s health cross-loaded on factors 1 and 4, suggesting an overlap of constructs for this item as a source of moral distress both at home and at the workplace.

Discussion

To our knowledge, there is limited/sparse literature on moral distress during COVID-19 that considered gender [34, 35]. Our analysis demonstrated that men had higher moral distress scores related to unpaid care than women. Men were significantly more distressed when they were required to care for dependents whom they did not feel qualified to care for and witnessed their dependents’ health, and education, or overall development suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services, including school. These findings suggest that when men were asked to take on tasks that are often conducted by women (in addition to healthcare, teaching and childcare are highly feminized professions in Canada) they felt unqualified. This may reflect gendered assumptions about unpaid care that position care as something that all women can ‘naturally’ do, and by extension, not something men ‘naturally’ excel at, leading to their perception of feeling unqualified [38]. Furthermore, distress related to education and development may reflect evidence that home schooling was one of the forms of unpaid care that men were more likely to participate in during the pandemic, due to gender norms, and so were likely to be aware of related challenges [39]. Research has documented how traditional forms of masculinity conflict with increased demand on men to taking on caring roles, and how men are negotiating these tensions [40]. Hrženjak, among other care theorists, calls for a de-gendering of care as a means to both free women from demands to provide care and create space for men to take on more caregiving [41]. Creating awareness—through research, policy and public discussion—around women’s disproportionate contributions to unpaid care, while also providing paid care, can expose the contradictions and injustices imbedded in gender norms.

Women reported slightly higher moral distress scores at the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, with results highlighting that they were significantly more concerned about caring for patients/residents who could not see their family or friends while in the facility (their main concern), followed by caring for patients who presented transmission risk to their dependents. One possible explanation is the gendered nature of emotional labour in healthcare work; as previous research indicates, women are often expected to bear greater emotional labour burdens in the workplace compared to men [42]. In addition, other studies examining the gendered nature of the healthcare workforce note that women are more likely to be in positions with prolonged and close contact with patients, compared to men, leading to potentially greater opportunities for moral distress [43]. COVID-19 related sources of moral distress identified in our study, such as PPE, support existing literature as well [44]. The response to COVID-19 may have had similar, or potentially exacerbated, impacts on these gendered positionalities.

In previous qualitative research, healthcare workers expressed frustration that their identities as both paid and unpaid care providers are not recognized in the workplace, resulting in the absence of supportive policies in general and during COVID-19 [21], this may partly explain the significantly higher mean moral distress levels at the workplace among who provided unpaid care, compared to those who did not. It is perhaps not surprising that those central to the COVID response, in both public and private spheres, bore a greater moral distress burden (than those solely providing care at work), yet the relationship between paid and unpaid care experiences is rarely discussed. Apart from adding quantitative evidence to demonstrate particular moral distress burdens on those experiencing double care responsibilities, we explored relationships between structural factors determining moral distress in public and private spheres. We observed some intersections between these domains. Notably, when crises impact the health of dependents, this moral distress manifests in both professional care responsibilities and distress associated with unpaid caregiving.

In applying the concept of moral distress to unpaid, as well as paid care, we hope to introduce a further method of analyzing the costs and effects of unpaid care on those responsible for providing it. Currently, such assessments rely on time-use surveys and financial assessments—often using hourly earnings estimates to determine financial and opportunity costs [45]. While understanding the economics of unpaid care is crucial, such approaches do not capture psychosocial, emotional, and mental health burdens despite unpaid caregivers’ past reports of related stress, anxiety, and depression [2]. During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, these costs increase, with over 70% of women in one Canadian survey reporting mental health burdens related to increased unpaid care work during the first few months of the pandemic [46]. A later survey conducted in April 2021 found that 71% of mothers were “at the breaking point” due to stress and anxiety [47]. Documenting moral distress related to unpaid care offers a further approach to assessing the multidimensional burdens born by those providing care. In turn, facilitating the development of strategies to mitigate such burdens and their effects.

Due to the scope of our research project, we have specifically focused on unpaid care burdens of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, future research might build off this example to develop a moral distress scale related to unpaid caregiving for the general population and in broader settings not specific to the COVID-19 crisis. Such research may provide an innovative approach to understanding the complex experience of providing unpaid care and the psychosocial effects of such burdens. While moral distress often corresponds to burnout and attrition among healthcare providers [16], questions emerged about its long-term effects on unpaid care providers, who often do not have the option of forgoing care responsibilities.

This study has a number of limitations, including its cross-sectional nature and non-random sampling, which limit generalizability to the entire workforce. It may be that those healthcare workers most aware of, or concerned about moral distress, volunteered for the survey, influencing results. The timing of the study, following the emergency response phase when vaccines were available and health regulations eased, will have also influenced results, as will the recall bias of participants who were asked to reflect on experiences over the past year (since October 2021). While our main analyses were on gender, we do not examine intersecting identity factors related to race, ethnicity, ability, etc. Even within our analysis, the sample size restricted us to men and women genders, excluding those who identified as transgender, two-spirit, and non-binary. Specific research on these genders is needed to understand their experiences better, as is broader research on how intersectional inequities related to race, class etc. interact with experiences of moral distress. Such research might consider how health and care systems in countries such as Canada are not only distinctly gendered but also increasingly racialized and reflect notable socio-economic differences in terms of who fills what roles [23]. Similarly, a more nuanced assessment of unpaid care responsibilities, in terms of amount and type of care as well as in relation to different dependents (children versus older adults etc.), is required. Furthermore, we analyzed the unpaid care responsibilities using a single-item question, which may not capture the complexity and depth of this construct, such as type of care provision, amount of care etc. A restricted sample size might also have caused type I errors, where we could not find statistical differences that might be present at the population level. Hence, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as it may be less stable than findings based on more systematically measured constructs. Random sampling of healthcare workers and unpaid care providers would further provide more representative results of the general population.

Conclusion

Our study has highlighted the complex dynamics and significant influence of gender and other potential identity factors in shaping moral distress among healthcare workers during a public health crisis. Findings that demonstrate greater levels of moral distress at work among those with unpaid care responsibilities, reinforce what healthcare workers have previously expressed [21]—their care work at home impacts their professional care work. Policies that reduce unpaid care burdens, such as accessible childcare and elder care, may mitigate moral distress, and related burnout. Considering the current crisis in human resources for health care in Canada and elsewhere such policies would not only benefit healthcare workers but the broader health system and therefore population level health. Employers may also take targeted actions such as enabling more flexible scheduling, improving caregiving leave policies, and offering support for care responsibilities (such as childcare subsidies, homecare assistance, etc).

Our findings, further emphasize the urgent need for gender-supportive approaches and research with a more comprehensive understanding of unpaid care burdens to better support those who primarily provide unpaid care in society. Findings related to men’s elevated moral distress related to unpaid care indicate a need to counter gender norms that position unpaid care as women’s expertise and to build men’s confidence in providing unpaid care. Such change requires cultural shifts that while slow can be promoted through modeling of those in positions of authority and gender sensitivity trainings. Policies that support men’s engagement in unpaid care, such as shared parental leave and flexible work policies in masculine-dominated fields, can further promote change [48]. Such interventions might particularly be developed to support men healthcare workers through workplace trainings on caring masculinity [40].

There is a growing literature calling for greater recognition, support, and compensation for the emotional labour that women healthcare workers often provide [49, 50]. Findings here suggest such support is particularly crucial during a crisis and needs to include the emotional support that is provided to dependents. Indeed, feminist research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care economy, clearly demonstrates the intrinsic relationship between unpaid and paid care, and the need to recognize that a strong healthcare workforce depends on supportive care policies, including accessible childcare, support with elder care and resources for selfcare, among others.

We acknowledge and are grateful to Alexander Korzuchowski, Simran Purewal and Neda Zolfaghari who helped with preliminary research and survey development.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.r001
Decision Letter 0
Botero Carvajal Alejandro Academic Editor
© 2024 Alejandro Botero Carvajal
2024
Alejandro Botero Carvajal
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
25 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-17880Moral distress related to paid and unpaid care  among healthcare workers  during the COVID-19 pandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tiwana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please review the following: 

I agree with the need to clarify the points detailed by the reviewers. Especially, detail the social relevance of the study, that is, how the research findings can be used and which people can use them. In this sense, indicate future lines of research precisely and in the context of recent scientific production.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alejandro Botero Carvajal, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ".

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data will be made available upon reasonable request from first author.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Introduction makes a reasonable and clear case for the relevance of this study and how it contributes to the current literature. I see the importance of this study as another needed step in broadening the field of moral distress from the inpatient setting.

The manuscript appropriately raises the challenge for the field of moral distress in ongoing debates on its definition (line 73) and on its overfocus on the moral distress and its measurement in hospital-based workers (97-100), specifically nurses. The authors took significant steps to develop survey questions appropriate for unpaid care in the home and community setting, and I generally like the items the authors choose and adapted (although any set group of measurement statements will inevitably exclude capturing moral distress from issues not included within the statements selected, a real risk for a phenomenon as broad as the causes of moral distress).

My issue is that some of the crafted items, e.g., “Witnessed my dependents’ health suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services,” “Witnessed my dependents’ education or overall development suffer due to interruptions in schooling/services” and “Worked with team members who do not treat those with COVID with dignity and respect” do not fit the standard definition of moral distress as coming from constraints on an individual’s own actions and I believe reflected in the authors’ (perhaps too vague) conceptualization of moral distress (lines 71-72), “Moral distress can be conceptualized broadly as challenges faced by those unable to provide care they believe to be required.” Restated, by the survey measurement items selected, the authors’ definition of moral distress includes one’s distress from witnessing others’ actions or outside events that one feels are wrong, and not just distress stemming from actions taken when having one’s own actions constrained. It also includes distress from actions that are constrained from happening, and not just constraints forcing actions.

This is a definitional challenge for the entire field of moral distress and not unique to this study. I believe the authors do not disagree. The field needs to recognize that even some of its accepted measurement instruments take the concepts of moral distress beyond what stems from constraints on one’s own actions. If the authors see the field this way, here is one definition that acknowledges that moral distress stems from more than solely what an individual is forced to do themselves: “we conceptualise moral distress as the psychological unease or distress that occurs when one witnesses, does things or fails to do things that contradict deeply held moral and ethical beliefs and expectations.” (Pathman et al. Moral distress among clinicians working in U.S. safety net practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e061369. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061369). Clear and accurate definitions of a study’s fundamental concepts are, of course, crucial in science.

Specific comments:

1. Lines 22-23 I find the phrase of the abstract obtuse: “little research considers the interaction between these two sectors of the care economy.” Perhaps this can be reworded for clarity for those minimally familiar with the ins and outs of unpaid caregiving.

2. Line 119. Please clarify/explain/reword “extractive responses”. This sounds like jargon and perhaps too value laden for scientific writing.

3. Do the data allow investigators to know how both moral distress for both unpaid and paid care differ for subjects whose dependents include children? It would seem that the sources and amount of moral distress will differ when speaking of responsibilities and witnessing things happening to one’s own children versus other dependents. And given societal gender differences in responsibility for children (as the authors point out), how does parenthood affect moral distress differences in paid and unpaid care found for men and women?

4. Lines 350-362. The limitations listed are appropriate—I appreciate the investigators’ understanding of the limitations of their study and forthrightness in disclosing these limitations.

5. How are study findings specific to or potentially affected by the timing of the survey, i.e., at about 20 months into the pandemic, when PPE shortages had abated, and an effective vaccine was widely available?

6. Conclusion section. I find this section emphasizes study findings related to gender differences and omits conclusions from study findings about the amount and relationship between moral distress from unpaid and paid care, which is the manuscript’s title and the study’s seeming focus within the abstract.

Reviewer #2: I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled "Moral distress related to paid and unpaid care among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic". I commend the authors for their insightful analysis of the gender-specific experiences of moral distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on unpaid caregiving responsibilities.

I commend you on the clarity and coherence of your manuscript, as well as the depth of your empirical analysis. Your policy recommendations are insightful and offer practical insights for policymakers and industry stakeholders. However, I recommend the following revisions to further strengthen your manuscript:

The manuscript effectively highlights the gender disparities in moral distress, the impact of gender norms on caregiving roles, and the interconnectedness of unpaid and paid care experiences. The discussion emphasizes the urgent need for gender-supportive approaches, comprehensive research, and policy interventions to address the complex dynamics of moral distress in healthcare settings.

Feedback and Recommendations:

Strengths Acknowledgement: The manuscript provides a comprehensive analysis of an important topic and offers valuable insights into the gendered experiences of moral distress among healthcare workers.

Revision Recommendation: Given the depth of the analysis and the importance of the topic, I recommend a major revision to strengthen the manuscript’s impact and relevance. Enhancing the discussion section with clearer implications for practice, additional policy recommendations, and a more detailed exploration of the intersectionality of gender and other identity factors would be beneficial.

Specific Suggestions for Revision:

1- In method: Clarify the rationale behind the selection of specific items for the moral distress scales and how they align with the study objectives and previous research findings.

2- Emphasize the practical implications of the findings for healthcare organizations, policymakers, and support systems for healthcare workers.

3- Address the study’s limitations, such as the non-random sampling and the exclusion of intersecting identity factors, and provide suggestions for future research directions to further explore these aspects.

Consider expanding on the recommendations for addressing gender norms, promoting men’s involvement in caregiving, and advocating for supportive care policies in healthcare settings.

4- In conclusion, with some revisions to enhance the practical implications and address study limitations, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of healthcare ethics and gender studies. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript and the valuable insights it will provide to the academic community.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Donald Pathman, MD MPH

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hadi Abbasian

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
31 Jul 2024

Editorial comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

- I have updated the title page to reflect PLOS ONE's style requirements. Thank you for flagging.

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ".

- The ORCID i.d of the corresponding author has been added.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data will be made available upon reasonable request from first author.].

The de-identified data has been placed into the OSF repository and made public, available here DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4VXGE

Reviewer 1

My issue is that some of the crafted items, e.g., “Witnessed my dependents’ health suffer due to inadequate care from professional providers or interruptions in services,” “Witnessed my dependents’ education or overall development suffer due to interruptions in schooling/services” and “Worked with team members who do not treat those with COVID with dignity and respect” do not fit the standard definition of moral distress as coming from constraints on an individual’s own actions and I believe reflected in the authors’ (perhaps too vague) conceptualization of moral distress (lines 71-72), “Moral distress can be conceptualized broadly as challenges faced by those unable to provide care they believe to be required.” Restated, by the survey measurement items selected, the authors’ definition of moral distress includes one’s distress from witnessing others’ actions or outside events that one feels are wrong, and not just distress stemming from actions taken when having one’s own actions constrained. It also includes distress from actions that are constrained from happening, and not just constraints forcing actions.

This is a definitional challenge for the entire field of moral distress and not unique to this study. I believe the authors do not disagree. The field needs to recognize that even some of its accepted measurement instruments take the concepts of moral distress beyond what stems from constraints on one’s own actions. If the authors see the field this way, here is one definition that acknowledges that moral distress stems from more than solely what an individual is forced to do themselves: “we conceptualise moral distress as the psychological unease or distress that occurs when one witnesses, does things or fails to do things that contradict deeply held moral and ethical beliefs and expectations.” (Pathman et al. Moral distress among clinicians working in U.S. safety net practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e061369. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061369). Clear and accurate definitions of a study’s fundamental concepts are, of course, crucial in science.

- This is a very valuable comment, and we agree that the field of moral distress is characterized by definitional challenges. Thank you for pointing to a definition that does indeed reflect our approach in this instance. We have replaced the definition we included, which we recognize was rather vague, with the one provided.

- In terms of the survey items, these were adapted from the Moral Distress Scale (MDS-R) which is a validated tool for measuring moral distress, which includes items such as ‘Watch patient care suffer . . ‘, which we adapted to ‘witness my dependent’ health suffer’. However, we do recognize that while such questions imply a distress from witnessing suffering and being constrained from taking action, they do not explicitly state this. This is something we will consider in future research.

Specific comments:

1. Lines 22-23 I find the phrase of the abstract obtuse: “little research considers the interaction between these two sectors of the care economy.” Perhaps this can be reworded for clarity for those minimally familiar with the ins and outs of unpaid caregiving.

- We have reworded this

2. Line 119. Please clarify/explain/reword “extractive responses”. This sounds like jargon and perhaps too value laden for scientific writing.

- There is a feminist literature on extractive care economies, but you are right that it is not clearly articulated in this paper and digging into that literature would probably be a distraction, so we have edited the sentence.

3. Do the data allow investigators to know how both moral distress for both unpaid and paid care differ for subjects whose dependents include children? It would seem that the sources and amount of moral distress will differ when speaking of responsibilities and witnessing things happening to one’s own children versus other dependents. And given societal gender differences in responsibility for children (as the authors point out), how does parenthood affect moral distress differences in paid and unpaid care found for men and women?

- In order to keep the survey short we did not ask moral distress questions for each dependent type and so are unable to analyze results for those subjects whose dependents include children / are parents. This is a limitation we discussed during the analysis as something we would change in future and which I have now added to the limitation section here.

4. Lines 350-362. The limitations listed are appropriate—I appreciate the investigators’ understanding of the limitations of their study and forthrightness in disclosing these limitations.

- Thank you!

5. How are study findings specific to or potentially affected by the timing of the survey, i.e., at about 20 months into the pandemic, when PPE shortages had abated, and an effective vaccine was widely available?

- We asked participants to reflect on their experience over the past year (between October 2021 and time of completing the survey which was October to December 2022). We have noted this in the methods section as well as in the limitations section

6. Conclusion section. I find this section emphasizes study findings related to gender differences and omits conclusions from study findings about the amount and relationship between moral distress from unpaid and paid care, which is the manuscript’s title and the study’s seeming focus within the abstract.

- We have added greater analysis about the relationship between unpaid and paid care and moral distress to the conclusion.

Reviewer #2:

Given the depth of the analysis and the importance of the topic, I recommend a major revision to strengthen the manuscript’s impact and relevance. Enhancing the discussion section with clearer implications for practice, additional policy recommendations, and a more detailed exploration of the intersectionality of gender and other identity factors would be beneficial.

1- In method: Clarify the rationale behind the selection of specific items for the moral distress scales and how they align with the study objectives and previous research findings.

- have expanded on the process of selecting specific items for the moral distress scale

2- Emphasize the practical implications of the findings for healthcare organizations, policymakers, and support systems for healthcare workers.

- Added to conclusion

3- Address the study’s limitations, such as the non-random sampling and the exclusion of intersecting identity factors, and provide suggestions for future research directions to further explore these aspects.

- We have added this to methods section

4- Consider expanding on the recommendations for addressing gender norms, promoting men’s involvement in caregiving, and advocating for supportive care policies in healthcare settings.

- We have added content on this in the discussion and conclusion

5- In conclusion, with some revisions to enhance the practical implications and address study limitations, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of healthcare ethics and gender studies. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript and the valuable insights it will provide to the academic community.

- Thank you very much for the constructive feedback.

Attachment Submitted filename: PO_Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0310132.r003
Decision Letter 1
Botero Carvajal Alejandro Academic Editor
© 2024 Alejandro Botero Carvajal
2024
Alejandro Botero Carvajal
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
26 Aug 2024

Moral distress related to paid and unpaid care  among healthcare workers  during the COVID-19 pandemic

PONE-D-24-17880R1

Dear Dr. Tiwana,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alejandro Botero Carvajal, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I believe the authors have been responsive to all reviewers' questions and recommendations. I find the revised draft to be a solid paper that presents a solid study clearly of an understudied topic, with balanced tone.

Two suggested copy editing points:

Line 326--"their" is misspelled

Line 305--the use of the slash ("/") here is ambiguous (as it often is). I suggest writing out its intended meaning, which might be simply "limited" or "sparse."

Reviewer #2: The authors have effectively incorporated the feedback into the revised manuscript, enhancing the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the research presented.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Donald Pathman, MD MPH

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hadi Abbasian

**********
==== Refs
References

1 Andersson M , Nordin A , Engström Å . Critical Care Nurses’ Perception of Moral Distress in Intensive Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic ‐ A Pilot Study. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing. 2022;72 :103279. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103279 35688753
2 Cheng Z , Mendolia S , Paloyo AR , Savage DA , Tani M . Working Parents, Financial Insecurity, and Childcare: Mental Health in the Time of COVID-19 in the UK. Review of Economics of the Household. 2021;19 (1 ):123–144. 10.1007/S11150-020-09538-3/TABLES/15. doi: 10.1007/s11150-020-09538-3 33456425
3 Delaney RK , Locke A , Pershing ML , Geist C , Clouse E , Precourt Debbink M , et al . Experiences of a Health System’s Faculty, Staff, and Trainees’ Career Development, Work Culture, and Childcare Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4 (4 ):e213997. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3997 33797552
4 Morgan R , Tan H-L , Oveisi N , Memmott C , Korzuchowski A , Hawkins K , et al . Women Healthcare Workers’ Experiences during COVID-19 and Other Crises: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances. 2022;100066. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100066 35128472
5 Fuller S , Qian Y . COVID-19 and The Gender Gap in Employment Among Parents of Young Children in Canada. Journal of Family Issues. 2021;35 (2 ):206–217. 10.1177/08912432211001287.
6 Smith J , Davies SE , Feng H , Gan CCR , Grépin KA , Harman S , et al . More than a Public Health Crisis: A Feminist Political Economic Analysis of COVID-19. Global Public Health. 2021:1–17. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1896765 33705248
7 Flor LS , Friedman J , Spencer CN , Cagney J , Arrieta A , Herbert ME , et al . Quantifying the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Gender Equality on Health, Social, and Economic Indicators: A Comprehensive Review of Data from March, 2020, to September, 2021. The Lancet. 2022;399 (10344 ):2381–2397. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00008-3 35247311
8 Stanfors M , Jacobs JC , Neilson J . Caregiving time costs and trade-offs: Gender differences in Sweden, the UK, and Canada. SSM ‐ Population Health. 2019;9 :100501. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100501 31720360
9 Azcona A , Davies S , Harman S , Smith J , Wenham C . Will the Pandemic Derail Hard-Won Progress on Gender Equality? Spotlight on Gender, COVID-19 and the SDGs Acknowledgements. UN Women. 2020.
10 Antonopoulos R. The Unpaid Care Work-Paid Work Connection. Levy Economics Institute. http://www.levy.org. 2008.
11 Elson D. Progress of the World’s Women 2000. UNIFEM Biennial Report. United Nations Development Fund for Women, New York. 2000.
12 MacDonald BJ , Wolfson M , Hirdes J . The Future Co$t of Long-Term Care in Canada (Report no.2). National Institute on Ageing. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c2fa7b03917eed9b5a436d8/t/5dbadf6ce6598c340ee6978f/1572527988847/The+Future+Cost+of+Long-Term+Care+in+Canada.pdf. 2019.
13 Addati L , Cattaneo U , Esquivel V , Valarino I . Care Work and Care Jobs for the Future of Decent Work. International Labour Organization (ILO). 2018.
14 Jameton A. Dilemmas of Moral Distress: Moral Responsibility and Nursing Practice. Clinical Issues in Perinatal and Women’s Health Nursing. 1993;4 (4 ):542–551. 8220368
15 Pathman AD , Sonis J , Rauner T ,. Alton K , Headlee A , Harrison J . Moral distress among clinicians working in U.S. safety net practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study. BMJ Open. 2022;12 :e061369. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061369 36008061
16 Karakachian A , Colbert A . Nurses’ Moral Distress, Burnout, and Intentions to Leave: An Integrative Review. Journal of Forensic Nursing. 2019;15 (3 ):133. doi: 10.1097/JFN.0000000000000249 31436681
17 Dodek PM , Cheung EO , Burns KEA , Martin CM , Archambault PM , Lauzier F , et al . Moral Distress and Other Wellness Measures in Canadian Critical Care Physicians. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2021;18 (8 ):1343–1351. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1118OC 33356972
18 Morley G , Bradbury-Jones C , Ives J . What is ’Moral Distress’ in Nursing? A Feminist Empirical Bioethics Study. Nursing Ethics. 2020;27 (5 ):1297–1314. doi: 10.1177/0969733019874492 31566094
19 Sese D , Ahmad MU , Rajendram P . Ethical Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 2020. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc038
20 Alonso-Prieto E , Longstaff H , Black A , Virani AK . COVID-19 Outbreak: Understanding Moral-Distress Experiences Faced by Healthcare Workers in British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19 (15 ):9701. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159701 35955056
21 Smith J , Korzuchowski A , Memmott C , Oveisi N , Tan HL , Morgan R . Double distress: Women healthcare providers and moral distress during COVID-19. Nursing Ethics. 2023;30 (1 ):46–57. doi: 10.1177/09697330221114329 36260872
22 Frank E , Zhao Z , Fang Y , Rotenstein LS , Sen S , Guille C . Experiences of Work-Family Conflict and Mental Health Symptoms by Gender Among Physician Parents During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4 (11 ):e2134315. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34315 34767022
23 Mũrage A , Morgan R , Samji H , Smith J . Gendered and Racial Experiences of Moral Distress: A Scoping Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Advance online publication. 2023. doi: 10.1111/jan.15901 37849045
24 BCCDC. COVID-19 Dashboard. 2022. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a6f23959a8b14bfa989e3cda29297ded.
25 Kulkarni A. 2022, December 29. 2022 was the deadliest year of the COVID-19 pandemic in B.C. What’s next? CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/2022-covid-year-in-review-1.6699063.
26 CIHI. 2021. COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in Health Care Workers in Canada | CIHI. Canadian Institute for Health Information. https://www.cihi.ca/en/covid-19-cases-and-deaths-in-health-care-workers-in-canada.
27 Faghanipour S , Monteverde S , Peter E . COVID-19-related Deaths in Long-term Care: The Moral Failure to Care and Prepare. Nursing Ethics. 2020;27 (5 ):1171–1173. doi: 10.1177/0969733020939667 32703121
28 Whiteside H. Purchase for Profit: Public-Private Partnerships and Canada’s Public Health Care System. University of Toronto Press. 2015.
29 Armstrong P. Unpaid Health Care Work: An Indicator of Equity. Summary. Pan American Health Organization. 2013.
30 Office of the Seniors Advocate. A Billion Reasons to Care. 2020.
31 Prentice S , White LA . Childcare Deserts and Distributional Disadvantages: The Legacies of Split Childcare Policies and Programmes in Canada. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy. 2019;35 (1 ):59–74. 10.1080/21699763.2018.1526700.
32 Shrma L , Smith J . COVID-19’s Effects on the Healthcare and Social Assistance Workforce in Canada: Gendered Employment Loss and Wage Inequality 2020–2021. Gender and COVID-19 Project. 2021 :1–6.
33 D’Ignazio C , Klein L . Data Feminism. MIT Press. 2020.
34 Smith J , Tiwana MH , Samji H , Morgan R , Purewal S , Delgado-Ron JA . An Intersectional Analysis of Moral Distress and Intention to Leave Employment Among Long-Term Care Providers in British Columbia. Journal of Aging and Health. 2023;0 (0 ). doi: 10.1177/08982643231212981 37943505
35 Delgado-Ron JA , Tiwana MH , Murage A , Morgan R , Purewal S , Smith J . Moral Distress, Coping Mechanisms, and Turnover Intent Among healthcare providers in British Columbia: a race and gender-based analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24 (1 ):925. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11377-2 39138558
36 Cramer E , Smith J , Rogowski J , Lake E . Measuring Moral Distress in Nurses During a Pandemic: Development and Validation of the COVID-MDS. Research in Nursing & Health. 2022;45 :549–558. doi: 10.1002/nur.22254 35869944
37 Corley MC , Elswick RK , Gorman M , Clor T . Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale. Journal of advanced nursing. 2001;33 (2 ):250–256. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01658.x 11168709
38 Elson D. Gender-aware Analysis and Development Economics. Journal of International Development. 1993;5 (2 ):237–247. 10.1002/jid.3380050214.
39 Qian Y , Fuller S . COVID-19 and the Gender Employment Gap Among Parents of Young Children. Canadian Public Policy. 2020;46 :S89–S101. doi: 10.3138/cpp.2020-077 38629993
40 Hunter SC , Riggs DW , Augoustinos M . Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2017; 11 :e12307. 10.1111/spc3.12307
41 Hrženjak M. Multiple masculinities in primary caregiving situations: Degendering care and undoing masculinity. Anthropological Notebooks. 2020;26 (2 ).
42 Barron DN , West E . The Emotional Costs of Caring Incurred by Men and Women in the British Labour Market. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;65 (10 ):2160–2171. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.027 17692446
43 O’Connell CB . Gender and the Experience of Moral Distress in Critical Care Nurses. Nursing Ethics. 2015;22 (1 ):32–42. doi: 10.1177/0969733013513216 24482261
44 Nagle E. , Šuriņa S. , & Griškēviča I. 2023. "Healthcare Workers’ Moral Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review." Social Sciences 12 (7 ): 371.
45 Grosse S.D. , Pike J. , Soelaeman R. , et al . 2019. "Quantifying Family Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Measurement and Valuation of Informal Care Time." Pharmacoeconomics 37 : 461–473. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00782-9 30953263
46 Oxfam. 2020. "Unpaid Care Work Caused by COVID-19." https://www.oxfam.ca/news/71-per-cent-of-canadian-women-feeling-more-anxious-depressed-isolated-overworked-or-ill-because-of-increased-unpaid-care-work-caused-by-covid-19-oxfam-survey/.
47 CMHA. 2022. "Summary of Findings Mental Health Impacts of COVID-19: Wave 2." https://cmha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CMHA-UBC-wave-2-Summary-of-Findings-FINAL-EN.pdf.
48 Doucet A. , Mathieu S. , and McKay L. 2020. "Reconceptualizing Parental Leave Benefits in COVID-19 Canada: From Employment Policy to Care and Social Protection Policy." Canadian Public Policy, COVID-19, Accepted Version. doi: 10.3138/cpp.2020-091 38629984
49 Dean L. , Churchill B. , and Ruppanner L. 2022. "The Mental Load: Building a Deeper Theoretical Understanding of How Cognitive and Emotional Labor Overload Women and Mothers." Community, Work and Family 25 (1 ): 13–29. 10.1080/13668803.2021.2002813.
50 Hoffman G. J. , & Wallace S. P. 2018. "The Cost of Caring–Economic Vulnerability, Serious Emotional Distress, and Poor Health Behaviors among Paid and Unpaid Family and Friend Caregivers." Research on Aging 40 (8 ): 791. doi: 10.1177/0164027517742430 29202659
