Cited by 25Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

How and how much is spirituality discussed in palliative care consultations for advanced cancer patients with and without a question prompt list?

Best, Megan, McArdle, Madeleine B., Huang, Yi-Jing, Clayton, Josephine, Butow, Phyllis·2019·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Patients want to discuss spirituality more with their doctors but feel disempowered. Question prompt lists (QPLs) assist conversations. This study assessed the impact of a QPL on spirituality discussions in Palliative Care (PC). Methods This was a sub-study of a trial in which PC patients were randomised to either receive a QPL prior to a consultation or not, to see whether its provision influenced advanced cancer patients'/caregivers' questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a PC physician. Consultations were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analysed to examine the frequency and content of spirituality discussions. We conducted logistic regression to investigate the impact of the QPL and other predictors. Results 174 patients participated. Spirituality was discussed in half the consultations. Patients receiving a QPL discussed spirituality 1.38 times more than controls. This finding did not reach statistical significance. First PC consultation and being asked about their concerns by the doctor were significant predictors of a spiritual discussion. Conclusion Patients are more likely to discuss spirituality in their first PC consultation, and when their doctor asks them about their concerns. Practice implications Doctors caring for patients at the end of life should routinely raise spiritual issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2019.06.016

Cites

27 of 27 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Best, M., McArdle, M. B., Huang, Y.-J., Clayton, J., & Butow, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Best, Megan
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
102
Issue
12
Pages
2208-2213
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951451006
Cited by
25
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Cancer Institute NSW
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
spirituality, palliative care, advanced cancer, question prompt list, physician-patient communication, end-of-life care, patient empowerment, caregivers
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Referral and Consultation, Terminal Care, Reminder Systems, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Terminally Ill, 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