Cited by 279Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

Do patients want doctors to talk about spirituality? A systematic literature review

Best, Megan, Butow, Phyllis, Olver, Ian·2015·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective The aim of this systematic literature review was to ascertain the patient perspective regarding the role of the doctor in the discussion of spirituality.Methods We conducted a systematic search in ten databases from inception to January 2015. Eligible papers reported on original research including patient reports of discussion of spirituality in a medical consultation. Papers were separated into qualitative and quantitative for the purposes of analysis and quality appraisal with QualSyst. Papers were merged for the final synthesis.Results 54 studies comprising 12,327 patients were included. In the majority of studies over half the sample thought it was appropriate for the doctor to enquire about spiritual needs in at least some circumstances (range 2.1-100%, median 70.5%), but patient preferences were not straightforward.Conclusion While a majority of patients express interest in discussion of religion and spirituality in medical consultations, there is a mismatch in perception between patients and doctors regarding what constitutes this discussion and therefore whether it has taken place.Practice implications This review demonstrated that many patients have a strong interest in discussing spirituality in the medical consultation. Doctors should endeavor to identify which patients would welcome such conversations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.017

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Several barriers limit addressing R/S, including the lack of training by health professionals and the lack of clear defined concepts.

    “several barriers limit addressing R/S, including the lack of training by health professionals and the lack of clear defined concepts (Best et al., 2015; Menegatti-Chequini et al., 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Best, M., Butow, P., & Olver, I.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Best, Megan
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
98
Issue
11
Pages
1320-1328
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108787934
Cited by
279
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
spirituality, patient preferences, physician-patient communication, medical consultation, spiritual needs, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Humans, Physician's Role, Referral and Consultation, Spirituality, Patient Preference

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