Taking Spiritual History in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of Instruments
Abstract
Background To facilitate the addressing of spirituality in clinical practice, several authors have created instruments for obtaining a spiritual history. However, in only a few studies have authors compared these instruments. The aim of this study was to compare the most commonly used instruments for taking a spiritual history in a clinical setting. Methods A systematic review of spiritual history assessment was conducted in five stages: identification of instruments used in the literature (databases searching); relevant articles from title and initial abstract review; exclusion and Inclusion criteria; full text retrieval and final analysis of each instrument. Results A total of 2,641 articles were retrieved and after the analysis, 25 instruments were included. The authors independently evaluated each instrument on 16 different aspects. The instruments with the greatest scores in the final analysis were FICA, SPIRITual History, FAITH, HOPE, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Concerning all 25 instruments, 20 of 25 inquire about the influence of spirituality on a person's life and 17 address religious coping. Nevertheless, only four inquire about medical practices not allowed, six deal with terminal events, nine have mnemonics to facilitate their use, and five were validated. Conclusions FICA, SPIRITual History, FAITH, HOPE, and Royal College of Psychiatrists scored higher in our analysis. The use of each instrument must be individualized, according to the professional re…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Two systematic reviews have summarized evidence concerning the available instruments for taking a SH and assessing spiritual suffering.
“Two systematic reviews have summarized evidence concerning the available instruments for taking a SH and assessing spiritual suffering.35,36”
The FICA instrument obtained the highest scores for clinical utility and applicability and is among the most commonly used instruments.
“An instrument known as Faith, Importance/Influence, Community, and Action/Address in care (FICA) obtained the highest scores for clinical utility and applicability and is among the most commonly used instruments.”
Most of the 25 instruments for taking a SH were developed for general use in clinical practice.
“Most of the 25 instruments were developed for general use in clinical practice.”
Only two instruments for taking a SH have been developed specifically for mental health: the Royal College of Psychiatrists Assessment and the Spiritual Assessment Interview.
“Only two such instruments have been developed specifically for mental health: the Royal College of Psychiatrists Assessment and the Spiritual Assessment Interview.”
There is evidence that even a brief R/S screening and assessment is quite helpful and should be incorporated as an important clinical aspect of patient interviews.
“There is evidence that even a brief R/S screening and assessment is quite helpful and should be incorporated as an important clinical aspect of patient interviews.35”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 108
- Authors
- Lucchetti, G., Bassi, R. M., & Lucchetti, A. L. G.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (BR)
- Hospital São Paulo (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Lucchetti, Giancarlo
- Venue
- EXPLORE
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159-170
- ISSN
- 1550-8307 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034291352
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- EXPLORE (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- spiritual history, spirituality in clinical practice, religious coping, instrument comparison, FICA, faith, hope, Royal College of Psychiatrists, instrument validation, mnemonics
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Culture, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Religion and Medicine, Mind-Body Relations, Metaphysical, 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.
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
