Tracy A Balboni1,2, Holly G Prigerson3, Michael J Balboni1, Andrea C Enzinger1,4, Tyler J VanderWeele5,6, Paul K Maciejewski3. 1. Department of Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Cornell Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies postulate that certain religious beliefs related to medical care influence the end-of-life (EOL) medical decision making and care of patients with advanced cancer. Because to the best of the authors' knowledge no current measure explicitly assesses such beliefs, in the current study the authors introduced and evaluated the Religious Beliefs in EOL Medical Care (RBEC) scale, a new measure designed to assess religious beliefs within the context of EOL cancer care. METHODS: The RBEC scale consists of 7 items designed to reflect religious beliefs in EOL medical care. Its psychometric properties were evaluated in a sample of 275 patients with advanced cancer from the Coping With Cancer II study, a National Cancer Institute-funded, multisite, longitudinal, observational study of communication processes and outcomes in EOL cancer care. RESULTS: The RBEC scale proved to be internally consistent (Cronbach α, .81), unidimensional, positively associated with other indicators of patients' religiousness and spirituality (establishing its convergent validity), and inversely associated with patients' terminal illness understanding and acceptance (establishing its criterion validity), suggesting its potential clinical usefulness in promoting informed EOL decision making. The majority of patients (87%) reported some ("somewhat," "quite a bit," or "a great deal") endorsement of at least 1 RBEC item and a majority (62%) endorsed ≥3 RBEC items. CONCLUSIONS: The RBEC scale is a reliable and valid tool with which to assess religious beliefs within the context of EOL medical care, beliefs that frequently are endorsed and inversely associated with terminal illness understanding.
BACKGROUND: Studies postulate that certain religious beliefs related to medical care influence the end-of-life (EOL) medical decision making and care of patients with advanced cancer. Because to the best of the authors' knowledge no current measure explicitly assesses such beliefs, in the current study the authors introduced and evaluated the Religious Beliefs in EOL Medical Care (RBEC) scale, a new measure designed to assess religious beliefs within the context of EOL cancer care. METHODS: The RBEC scale consists of 7 items designed to reflect religious beliefs in EOL medical care. Its psychometric properties were evaluated in a sample of 275 patients with advanced cancer from the Coping With Cancer II study, a National Cancer Institute-funded, multisite, longitudinal, observational study of communication processes and outcomes in EOL cancer care. RESULTS: The RBEC scale proved to be internally consistent (Cronbach α, .81), unidimensional, positively associated with other indicators of patients' religiousness and spirituality (establishing its convergent validity), and inversely associated with patients' terminal illness understanding and acceptance (establishing its criterion validity), suggesting its potential clinical usefulness in promoting informed EOL decision making. The majority of patients (87%) reported some ("somewhat," "quite a bit," or "a great deal") endorsement of at least 1 RBEC item and a majority (62%) endorsed ≥3 RBEC items. CONCLUSIONS: The RBEC scale is a reliable and valid tool with which to assess religious beliefs within the context of EOL medical care, beliefs that frequently are endorsed and inversely associated with terminal illness understanding.
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: Andrea C Phelps; Paul K Maciejewski; Matthew Nilsson; Tracy A Balboni; Alexi A Wright; M Elizabeth Paulk; Elizabeth Trice; Deborah Schrag; John R Peteet; Susan D Block; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexia M Torke; George Fitchett; Saneta Maiko; Emily S Burke; James E Slaven; Beth Newton Watson; Steven Ivy; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Laura S Castro; Tracy A Balboni; Talita C Lobo; Rita Simone L Moreira; Harold G Koenig; John R Peteet; Fatima Cintra Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2021-03-12
Authors: Login S George; Tracy A Balboni; Paul K Maciejewski; Andrew S Epstein; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 6.860