CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipStudy and Philosophy of Religion

An integrative review of the concept of spirituality in the health sciences

Chiu, Lyren, Emblen, Julia D., Van Hofwegen, Lynn, Sawatzky, Rick, Meyerhoff, Heather·2004·Western Journal of Nursing Research
DOI 10.1177/0193945904263411
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Spirituality is a universal human phenomenon, yet confusion and incomprehension of the concept is ever-present. The purpose of this study was to explore how research on the concept of spirituality has been reported in the health literature in the past decade and develop an ontological and theoretical understanding of spirituality. The examination was based on quantitative and qualitative integrative review approaches, which integrated empirical research on spirituality. The sample included 73 spirituality research articles, which were published in English between January 1990 and September 2000. An electronic data-collection tool was designed for use in this project and formatted using Excel software for transfer of coded data into the NVivo software for the data analysis. The results identified essential elements of spirituality, current use of operational definitions and instruments, conceptual frameworks used in spirituality research, and cultural aspects of spirituality. Historical comparison among decades and barriers in researching spirituality are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0193945904263411

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • Despite the increasing use of the concept of spirituality among health researchers, there is no clear consensus about its definition.

    “Despite the increasing use of the concept of spirituality among health researchers, there is no clear consensus about its definition (Chiu et al., 2004; Sessanna et al., 2007; Gall et al., 2011).”

    From Defining spirituality in healthcare: a systematic review and conceptual framework. (2021) · cites this paper as Chiu et al., 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chiu, L., Emblen, J. D., Van Hofwegen, L., Sawatzky, R., & Meyerhoff, H.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Portland Community College (US)
  • School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada
  • Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada
  • Trinity Western University (CA)
Venue
Western Journal of Nursing Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-06
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
405-428
ISSN
  • 0193-9459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8456
DOI
10.1177/0193945904263411
OpenAlex
W2114979604
Cited by
269
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 22
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Western Journal of Nursing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
Keywords
spirituality, health sciences, operational definitions, conceptual framework
MeSH terms
Culture, Humans, Models, Psychological, Terminology as Topic, Research Design, 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