Properties of the modified self-forgiveness dual-process scale in populations at risk for moral injury.

Despite theory suggesting that self-forgiveness facilitates recovery from moral injury, no measure of self-forgiveness has been validated with individuals exposed to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). Military veterans, healthcare workers, and first responders who reported PMIE exposure (n = 924) completed the Self-Forgiveness Dual-Process Scale, which assesses two dimensions of the self-forgiveness process. The first dimension, value affirmation, refers to appraising personal responsibility and being willing to make amends for one's involvement in a PMIE. The second dimension, esteem restoration, refers to accepting oneself as valuable and capable of growth despite one's failures and imperfections. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses replicated the original scale's two-factor structure in 10 items modified to apply to the diverse contexts in which PMIEs occur. Next, we found that the factor structure, item loadings, and item intercepts were fully or partially invariant across professions, genders, races, ages, and religious affiliations in a series of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses. Finally, diverging patterns of associations between value affirmation and esteem restoration with moral distress, posttraumatic stress, depression, insomnia, functional impairment, and posttraumatic growth provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity between the subscales. The modified self-forgiveness dual process scale is the first measure of self-forgiveness to be validated with individuals exposed to a PMIE. Researchers and clinicians can use the scale to examine how self-forgiveness (or difficulties with forgiving oneself) relates to moral injury.

Participant and Caregiver Perspectives on Clinical Research During Covid-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has massively disrupted essential clinical research. Many regulatory organizations have rightfully advocated to temporarily halt enrollment and curtail all face-to-face interactions. Views and opinions of patients and their caregivers are seldom considered while making such decisions. The objective was to study older participants' and their caregivers' perspectives to participate in ongoing clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: VISN-16/Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Department of Veterans Affairs. PARTICIPANTS: Older participants and their caregivers (N = 51) enrolled in ongoing clinical research studies. MEASUREMENTS: Questions about perceptions of safety to attend research visit, the level of panic among the general public, and medical center's preparedness in handling the pandemic. Other questions identified the source of pandemic information and the preference of a phone or in-person visit. RESULTS: Mean age was 69.3 (±9.4) years, 53% were male, 39% were caregivers, and 65% were Caucasian. Majority (78%) of the participants felt safe/very safe attending the scheduled research appointment; 63% felt that the extra screening made them feel safe/very safe; 82% felt that the medical center was prepared/very prepared for the pandemic. Participants split evenly on their preference for phone versus in-person visits. Family members and television news media were the commonly used sources of pandemic information irrespective of their education. Perceptions were influenced by gender and source of information, not by age or education. Females perceived higher level of panic compared to males (P = .02). Those relying on news media felt safer compared to those that relied on family members (P = .008). CONCLUSION: Even though informants felt that the medical center was prepared to handle the pandemic, only half the participants preferred the in-person visit. Pandemic information was obtained from family members or the television news media. Knowing patients' perspectives may help researchers be better prepared for future pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:E14-E18, 2020.

Conducting Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigator and Participant Perspectives.

As the medical landscape changes daily with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical researchers are caught off-guard and are forced to make decisions on research visits in their ongoing clinical trials. Although there is some guidance from local and national organizations, the principal investigator (PI) is ultimately responsible for determining the risk-benefit ratio of conducting, rescheduling, or cancelling each research visit. The PI should take into consideration the ethical principles of research, local/national guidance, the community risk of the pandemic in their locale, staffing strain, and the risk involved to each participant, to ultimately decide on the course of action. While balancing the rights and protection of the human subject, we seldom examine patients' views and opinions about their scheduled research visit(s). This article discusses the ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy in helping the decision-making process. We discuss ways to weigh-in local and national guidance, staffing strain, and institutional support into the decision-making process and outline potential changes needed for regulatory bodies depending on the decision. Further, we discuss the need to weigh-in the individual risk-benefit ratio for each participant and present a decision tree to navigate this complex process. Finally, we examine participant and caregiver perspectives on their fears, sense of preparedness, and factors that they consider before deciding whether to keep or postpone the research appointments. This entry also provides PIs ways to support their research participants in both scenarios, including provision of psychological support.