CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyCancer survivorship and careWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Religion, spirituality, and physical health in cancer patients: A meta‐analysis

Open access
Jim, Heather S. L., Pustejovsky, James E., Park, Crystal L., Danhauer, Suzanne C., Sherman, Allen C., Fitchett, George, Merluzzi, Thomas V., Munoz, Alexis R., George, Login, Snyder, Mallory A., Salsman, John M.·2015·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.29353PMC PMC4618080
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although religion/spirituality (R/S) is important in its own right for many cancer patients, a large body of research has examined whether R/S is also associated with better physical health outcomes. This literature has been characterized by heterogeneity in sample composition, measures of R/S, and measures of physical health. In an effort to synthesize previous findings, a meta‐analysis of the relation between R/S and patient‐reported physical health in cancer patients was performed. A search of PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library yielded 2073 abstracts, which were independently evaluated by pairs of raters. The meta‐analysis was conducted for 497 effect sizes from 101 unique samples encompassing more than 32,000 adult cancer patients. R/S measures were categorized into affective, behavioral, cognitive, and ‘other’ dimensions. Physical health measures were categorized into physical well‐being, functional well‐being, and physical symptoms. Average estimated correlations (Fisher z scores) were calculated with generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimation. Overall R/S was associated with overall physical health ( z = 0.153, P < .001); this relation was not moderated by sociodemographic or clinical variables. Affective R/S was associated with physical well‐being ( z = 0.167, P < .001), functional well‐being ( z = 0.343, P < .001), and physical symptoms ( z = 0.282, P < .001). Cognitive R/S was associated with physical well‐being ( z = 0.079, P < .05) and functional well‐being ( z = 0.090, P < .01). ‘Other’ R/S was associated with functional well‐being ( z = 0.100, P < .05). In conclusion, the results of the current meta‐analysis suggest that greater R/S is associated with better patient‐reported physical health. These results underscore the importance of attending to patients' religious and spiritual needs as part of comprehensive cancer care. Cancer 2015;121:3760–3768. © 2015 American Cancer Society .

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This meta-analysis found that greater religion/spirituality (R/S) was significantly associated with better patient-reported physical health in cancer patients. Affective R/S showed the strongest and most consistent associations across physical well-being, functional well-being, and physical symptoms.

Key findings

  • Overall R/S was associated with overall physical health (z = .153, p < .001), and this relationship was not moderated by sociodemographic or clinical variables (p values > .08).
  • Affective R/S was associated with physical well-being (z = .167, p < .001), functional well-being (z = .343, p < .001), and physical symptoms (z = .282, p < .001).
  • Cognitive R/S was associated with physical well-being (z = .079, p < .05) and functional well-being (z = .090, p < .01); “other” R/S was associated with functional well-being (z = .100, p < .05).
  • Behavioral R/S was not significantly associated with physical health (p = .57).

Methods

  • Meta-analysis of 497 effect sizes from 101 unique samples encompassing over 32,000 adult cancer patients; searches of PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library yielded 2,073 abstracts through December 20, 2013.
  • R/S measures were categorized a priori as affective, behavioral, cognitive, or “other”; physical health outcomes were categorized as physical well-being, functional well-being, and physical symptoms.
  • Average effect sizes were estimated on the Fisher z scale using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimation; moderator analyses examined demographic and clinical variables.

Limitations

  • The paper states that included studies tended to use small convenience samples, with nearly half including fewer than 150 participants; methods sections were often incomplete, and R/S measures varied in quality.
  • The paper states that the meta-analysis relied mostly on bivariate correlations from cross-sectional studies, preventing causal or directional inferences; few longitudinal studies precluded analyzing study design as a moderator, and too few studies examined objective outcomes such as inflammation, recurrence, or survival.
  • The paper reports possible funnel-plot asymmetry for affective R/S, though a cluster-robust Egger’s test did not detect reporting bias (p = .08); evident from the text, physical health was patient-reported only, and some R/S sub-dimensions had too few samples for analysis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.29353

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 21 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
17 of 17

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current study is the first meta-analysis of R/S and patient-reported physical health in cancer patients.

    “To our knowledge, the current study is the first meta-analysis of R/S and patient-reported physical health in cancer patients.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Varying definitions of R/S have contributed to heterogeneous measures and, in turn, mixed results.

    “Varying definitions of R/S have also likely contributed to heterogeneous measures and, in turn, mixed results.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Religious communities can provide tangible support, such as transportation to medical appointments and provision of meals and other basic care needs.

    “Religious communities can also provide tangible support, such as transportation to medical appointments and provision of meals and other basic care needs.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some religious sects proscribe health behaviors such as immunization and receipt of blood products.

    “while some religious sects proscribe health behaviors such as immunization and receipt of blood products.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Not confirmedz = 0.153reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .878

    “(z=.153, p < .001”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.167reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .867

    “(z=.167, p < .001”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.343reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .732

    “(z=.343, p < .001”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.282reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .778

    “(z=.282, p < .001”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.079reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .937

    “(z=.079, p < .05”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.09reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .928

    “(z=.090, p < .01”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.1reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .920

    “(z=.100, p < .05”

  • Not confirmedz = 0.153reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .878

    “(z = .153, p < .001”

8 of 8

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sapolsky R, 2004, Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–384 of 384

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jim, H. S. L., Pustejovsky, J. E., Park, C. L., Danhauer, S. C., Sherman, A. C., Fitchett, G., Merluzzi, T. V., Munoz, A. R., George, L., Snyder, M. A., & Salsman, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Jim, Heather S. L.
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-10
Volume
121
Issue
21
Pages
3760-3768
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.29353
PMC
PMC4618080
OpenAlex
W2142895878
Semantic Scholar
0a9023f9cca36bd67abd818498887270da460e66
Cited by
373
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K07CA158008, K07CA138499)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
religion, spirituality, cancer patients, physical health, physical well-being, functional well-being, somatic symptoms, patient-reported outcomes, comprehensive cancer care
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Behavior, Cognition, Health Status, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Religion and Medicine, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Spiritual Therapies, Spirituality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review