Cited by 216Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

Doctors discussing religion and spirituality: A systematic literature review

Best, Megan, Butow, Phyllis, Olver, Ian·2016·Palliative Medicine

Abstract

Background Discussion of religion and/or spirituality in the medical consultation is desired by patients and known to be beneficial. However, it is infrequent. We aimed to identify why this is so. Aim We set out to answer the following research questions: Do doctors report that they ask their patients about religion and/or spirituality and how do they do it? According to doctors, how often do patients raise the issue of religion and/or spirituality in consultation and how do doctors respond when they do? What are the known facilitators and barriers to doctors asking their patients about religion and/or spirituality? Design A mixed qualitative/quantitative review was conducted to identify studies exploring the physician's perspective on discussion of religion and/or spirituality in the medical consultation. Data sources We searched nine databases from inception to January 2015 for original research papers reporting doctors' views on discussion of religion and/or spirituality in medical consultations. Papers were assessed for quality using QualSyst and results were reported using a measurement tool to assess systematic review guidelines. Results Overall, 61 eligible papers were identified, comprising over 20,044 physician reports. Religion and spirituality are discussed infrequently by physicians although frequency increases with terminal illness. Many physicians prefer chaplain referral to discussing religion and/or spirituality with patients themselves. Such discussions are f…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269216315600912

Cites

0 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Best, M., Butow, P., & Olver, I.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Published
2015-08-12
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
327-337
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
OpenAlex
W1620651998
Cited by
216
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
religion, spirituality, physician-patient communication, medical consultation, physician attitudes, barriers to discussion, terminal illness, palliative care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Chaplaincy Service, Hospital, Communication, Communication Barriers, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Referral and Consultation, Religion and Medicine, Databases, Bibliographic, 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