Sayna Bahraini1, Wendy Gifford1, Ian D Graham2, Liquaa Wazni1, Suzette Brémault-Phillips3, Rebekah Hackbusch4, Catrine Demers5, Mary Egan5. 1. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Canada. 2. School of Epidemiology Public Health, University of Ottawa, Canada. 3. School of Occupational Therapy, University of Alberta, Canada. 4. Therapeutic Support Service, Bruyère Continuing Care-Saint Vincent Hospital, Canada. 5. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for palliative and spiritual care emphasize the importance of screening patients for spiritual suffering. The aim of this review was to synthesize the research evidence of the accuracy of measures used to screen adults for spiritual suffering. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature. We searched five scientific databases to identify relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed study methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified five articles that yielded information on 24 spiritual screening measures. Among all identified measures, the two-item Meaning/Joy & Self-Described Struggle has the highest sensitivity (82-87%), and the revised Rush protocol had the highest specificity (81-90%). The methodological quality of all included studies was low. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: While most of the identified spiritual screening measures are brief (comprised 1 to 12 items), few had sufficient accuracy to effectively screen patients for spiritual suffering. We advise clinicians to use their critical appraisal skills and clinical judgment when selecting and using any of the identified measures to screen for spiritual suffering.
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for palliative and spiritual care emphasize the importance of screening patients for spiritual suffering. The aim of this review was to synthesize the research evidence of the accuracy of measures used to screen adults for spiritual suffering. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature. We searched five scientific databases to identify relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed study methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified five articles that yielded information on 24 spiritual screening measures. Among all identified measures, the two-item Meaning/Joy & Self-Described Struggle has the highest sensitivity (82-87%), and the revised Rush protocol had the highest specificity (81-90%). The methodological quality of all included studies was low. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: While most of the identified spiritual screening measures are brief (comprised 1 to 12 items), few had sufficient accuracy to effectively screen patients for spiritual suffering. We advise clinicians to use their critical appraisal skills and clinical judgment when selecting and using any of the identified measures to screen for spiritual suffering.
Entities:
Keywords:
Screening; diagnostic test accuracy; spirituality; suffering; systematic review
Authors: Maciej Klimasiński; Ewa Baum; Joanna Praczyk; Monika Ziemkiewicz; Daria Springer; Szczepan Cofta; Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; C Graham Ford; James E Pustejovsky; Crystal L Park; Allen C Sherman; Kelly Trevino; John M Salsman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Anne Croker; Karin Fisher; Philip Hungerford; Jonathan Gourlay; Jennifer May; Shannon Lees; Jessica Chapman Journal: Palliat Care Soc Pract Date: 2022-03-09