Purpose:The continually advancing nature of health care has improved the quality of care provided to patients. However, it has also resulted in complex ethical issues healthcare providers face in Saudi Arabia. Literature concerning healthcare workers' moral sensitivity in Saudi Arabia is limited. This study aims to estimate moral sensitivity among physicians and determine the factors that influence it. Participants and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out among physicians working at a tertiary hospital. The Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ) developed by Kim Lützén was used. The lowest score that can be obtained from the MSQ is 30, and the highest score is 210. Low scores demonstrate high ethical sensitivity, and high scores indicate low ethical sensitivity. Results: A total of 253 physicians participated in the study. The mean score of moral sensitivity was 90.6±19.6. There is a significant difference in the overall moral sensitivity in relation to age (P = 0.049). There are significant differences in the Moral conflict dimension according to age (P = 0.002), parental status (P = 0.011), being a member of an ethical committee (P = 0.025), years of experience (P = 0.002), clinical ranking (P < 0.001), and previous training in bioethics (P = 0.029). There were significant differences in the Relational orientation dimension with the clinical ranking (P = 0.038) and specialty (P = 0.038). Membership of an ethical committee is a significant variable in the Benefit dimension (P = 0.028). Correlation coefficients between the overall moral sensitivity score and its dimensions were Autonomy (r = 0.68), Practice (r = 0.69), and Holistic approach (r = 0.69). Physicians who previously had training in bioethics (β 2.37, P = 0.022) and physicians who worked with clinical ethics committee (β 2.66, P = 0.008) were more likely to score better in Moral conflict dimension. Conclusion: Implementing ethical training for medical students and physicians will help raise their moral sensitivity levels, thereby enhancing how they deal with ethical dilemmas.

Burnout in healthcare workers (HCWs) is defined as a state of emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion that results from unmanaged, excessive, and long-term workplace stressors. This study aims to assess the prevalence of burnout and the levels of anxiety and depression among HCWs who primarily work with children who have autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted utilizing the Arabic version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS), Patient Health Questionnaire for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression (PHQ-9). Among the 381 participants working in autism centers, the majority were young Saudi females (326) working full-time as specialists in the private sector with less than five years of experience. The HCWs’ overall mean scores on the three Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA) were 62%, 23.7%, and 76.5%, respectively. A total of 51.4% of HCWs reported moderate to high anxiety levels on GAD-7, and 47.8% showed moderate to very high levels of depression on PHQ-9. The mean perceived EE converged significantly but negatively on their overall mean perceived satisfaction with AWS (p-value < 0.001), demonstrating that greater emotional fatigue predicts less satisfaction with their work. The PA scores correlated significantly and positively with their overall mean satisfaction with their AWS score (p-value < 0.001). Considering sociodemographic variables, HCWs aged between 20–29 years have significantly lower mean PA scores than HCWs aged thirty and older (p = 0.007). Also, male HCWs perceived significantly higher work-related DP than females. More research is required to determine the nature of variables that contribute to burnout, depression, and anxiety in HCWs helping children with ASD.

This cross-sectional study aims to compare pre- versus post-psychiatry course stigma levels toward mental illnesses among King Saud University medical students and identify which factors could affect stigma degree. The sample included 384 randomly chosen students. The overall scores of the used scale, the 15-item Opening Minds Scale for Healthcare Providers (OMS-HC-15), indicated no statistically significant difference between the before- and the after-psychiatry-course groups. The univariate analysis for differences in OMS-HC-15 score according to the sociodemographic characteristics of the pre psychiatry course group indicated that the factors associated with the total OMS-HC-15 score were sex (p < 0.001), being diagnosed with mental illness (p < 0.001), and having a relative diagnosed with mental illness (p = 0.005). Among the post psychiatry course group, the univariate analysis indicated that the same factors, namely, sex (p = 0.001), being diagnosed with mental illness (p = 0.006), and having a relative diagnosed with mental illness (p = 0.007), were associated with the total OMS-HC-15 score. Further studies at a larger scale to confirm generalizability of the results are warranted.