Michael J Balboni1, Adam Sullivan2, Andrea C Enzinger3, Patrick T Smith4, Christine Mitchell5, John R Peteet6, James A Tulsky7, Tyler VanderWeele8, Tracy A Balboni9. 1. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: michael_balboni@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Departments of Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, S. Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Social and Behavioral Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although clergy interact with approximately half of U.S. patients facing end-of-life medical decisions, little is known about clergy-congregant interactions or clergy influence on end-of-life decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct a nationally representative survey of clergy beliefs and practices. METHODS: A mailed survey to a nationally representative sample of clergy completed in March 2015 with 1005 of 1665 responding (60% response rate). The primary predictor variable was clergy religious values about end-of-life medical decisions, which measured belief in miracles, the sanctity of life, trust in divine control, and redemptive suffering. Outcome variables included clergy-congregant end-of-life medical conversations and congregant receipt of hospice and intensive care unit (ICU) care in the final week of life. RESULTS: Most U.S. clergy are Christian (98%) and affirm religious values despite a congregant's terminal diagnosis. Endorsement included God performing a miracle (86%), pursuing treatment because of the sanctity of life (54%), postponement of medical decisions because God is in control (28%), and enduring painful treatment because of redemptive suffering (27%). Life-prolonging religious values in end-of-life medical decisions were associated with fewer clergy-congregant conversations about considering hospice (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.80), P < 0.0001), stopping treatment (AOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.84, P = 0.003), and forgoing future treatment (AOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36-0.71, P < 0.001) but not associated with congregant receipt of hospice or ICU care. Clergy with lower medical knowledge were less likely to have certain end-of-life conversations. The absence of a clergy-congregant hospice discussion was associated with less hospice (AOR 0.45; 95% CI 0.29-0.66, P < 0.001) and more ICU care (AOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.14-2.50, P < 0.01) in the final week of life. CONCLUSION: American clergy hold religious values concerning end-of-life medical decisions, which appear to decrease end-of-life discussions. Clergy end-of-life education may enable better quality end-of-life care for religious patients.
CONTEXT: Although clergy interact with approximately half of U.S. patients facing end-of-life medical decisions, little is known about clergy-congregant interactions or clergy influence on end-of-life decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct a nationally representative survey of clergy beliefs and practices. METHODS: A mailed survey to a nationally representative sample of clergy completed in March 2015 with 1005 of 1665 responding (60% response rate). The primary predictor variable was clergy religious values about end-of-life medical decisions, which measured belief in miracles, the sanctity of life, trust in divine control, and redemptive suffering. Outcome variables included clergy-congregant end-of-life medical conversations and congregant receipt of hospice and intensive care unit (ICU) care in the final week of life. RESULTS: Most U.S. clergy are Christian (98%) and affirm religious values despite a congregant's terminal diagnosis. Endorsement included God performing a miracle (86%), pursuing treatment because of the sanctity of life (54%), postponement of medical decisions because God is in control (28%), and enduring painful treatment because of redemptive suffering (27%). Life-prolonging religious values in end-of-life medical decisions were associated with fewer clergy-congregant conversations about considering hospice (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.80), P < 0.0001), stopping treatment (AOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.84, P = 0.003), and forgoing future treatment (AOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36-0.71, P < 0.001) but not associated with congregant receipt of hospice or ICU care. Clergy with lower medical knowledge were less likely to have certain end-of-life conversations. The absence of a clergy-congregant hospice discussion was associated with less hospice (AOR 0.45; 95% CI 0.29-0.66, P < 0.001) and more ICU care (AOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.14-2.50, P < 0.01) in the final week of life. CONCLUSION: American clergy hold religious values concerning end-of-life medical decisions, which appear to decrease end-of-life discussions. Clergy end-of-life education may enable better quality end-of-life care for religious patients.
Authors: Peri Rosenfeld; Jeanne Dennis; Suzanne Hanen; Ernesto Henriquez; Theresa M Schwartz; Lyla Correoso; Christopher M Murtaugh; Alan Fleishman Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2007-06-29 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Tracy A Balboni; Lauren C Vanderwerker; Susan D Block; M Elizabeth Paulk; Christopher S Lathan; John R Peteet; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracy Anne Balboni; Mary Elizabeth Paulk; Michael J Balboni; Andrea C Phelps; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Alexi A Wright; Susan D Block; Eldrin F Lewis; John R Peteet; Holly Gwen Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah E Koss; Ross Weissman; Vinca Chow; Patrick T Smith; Bethany Slack; Vitaliy Voytenko; Tracy A Balboni; Michael J Balboni Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2018-08
Authors: Justin J Sanders; Vinca Chow; Andrea C Enzinger; Tai-Chung Lam; Patrick T Smith; Rebecca Quiñones; Andrew Baccari; Sarah Philbrick; Gloria White-Hammond; John Peteet; Tracy A Balboni; Michael J Balboni Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Michael J Balboni; Adam Sullivan; Patrick T Smith; Danish Zaidi; Christine Mitchell; James A Tulsky; Daniel P Sulmasy; Tyler J VanderWeele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 5.576