Cited by 959Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPalliative and Oncologic CareCancer survivorship and care

Religiousness and Spiritual Support Among Advanced Cancer Patients and Associations With End-of-Life Treatment Preferences and Quality of Life

Open access
Balboni, Tracy A., Vanderwerker, Lauren C., Block, Susan D., Paulk, M. Elizabeth, Lathan, Christopher S., Peteet, John R., Prigerson, Holly G.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Religion and spirituality play a role in coping with illness for many cancer patients. This study examined religiousness and spiritual support in advanced cancer patients of diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds and associations with quality of life (QOL), treatment preferences, and advance care planning. Methods: The Coping With Cancer study is a federally funded, multi-institutional investigation examining factors associated with advanced cancer patient and caregiver well-being. Patients with an advanced cancer diagnosis and failure of first-line chemotherapy were interviewed at baseline regarding religiousness, spiritual support, QOL, treatment preferences, and advance care planning. Results: Most (88%) of the study population (N = 230) considered religion to be at least somewhat important. Nearly half (47%) reported that their spiritual needs were minimally or not at all supported by a religious community, and 72% reported that their spiritual needs were supported minimally or not at all by the medical system. Spiritual support by religious communities or the medical system was significantly associated with patient QOL (P = .0003). Religiousness was significantly associated with wanting all measures to extend life (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.57). Conclusion: Many advanced cancer patients’ spiritual needs are not supported by religious communities or the medical system, and spiritual support is associated with better QOL. Religious individuals more frequently want aggressive measures to extend life.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.07.9046

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A systematic review and two meta-analyses have confirmed the relationship between R/S and longer survival.

    “Another systematic review [570] and two meta-analyses [571, 572] have confirmed this relationship between R/S and longer survival.”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [571]

    The Statistical Analysis section examines quality of life, treatment preferences, and advance care planning, not survival. A discussion passage reports an association between spiritual support and improved quality of life, but our copy does not address whether religiousness or spirituality is associated with longer survival (searched: survival, longer survival, systematic review, meta-analysis). No page numbers were provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Across the three reviews, survival among frequent attendees was increased on average by 37%, 43%, and 30%, with a mean effect of 37%.

    “Survival among frequent attendees was increased on average by 37%, 43%, and 30% (mean effect being 37% across these reviews).”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [571]

    The Religiousness and Religious Activities section reports how often advanced cancer patients attended services before and after diagnosis, but not their survival. Searches for the three review percentages and for service attendance, mortality, and survival found no passage in our copy reporting the claimed 37%, 43%, or 30% increases. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In these three reviews, the effects on survival have been particularly strong for frequency of attendance at religious services.

    “The effects have been particularly strong for frequency of attendance at religious services in these three reviews.”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [571]

    The Religiousness and Religious Activities section reports that service attendance decreased after cancer diagnosis, but does not relate attendance to survival. The Statistical Analysis section examines quality of life and end-of-life treatment preferences, not survival; searches for survival, attendance, and reviews found no passage supporting the claimed finding from three reviews. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McNichol T: The new faith in medicine. USA Today, April 5, 1996, pp. 4-5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balboni, T. A., Vanderwerker, L. C., Block, S. D., Paulk, M. E., Lathan, C. S., Peteet, J. R., & Prigerson, H. G.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-02-10
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
555-560
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2155116701
Cited by
959
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 65
FWCI
44.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CA106370)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63892, R01MH063892)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA106370, CA106370)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
religiosity, spirituality, spiritual support, advanced cancer, quality of life, end-of-life treatment preferences, advance care planning, religious communities, racial and ethnic diversity, coping with cancer
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Attitude to Death, Black or African American, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pastoral Care, Quality of Life, Religion and Medicine, Severity of Illness Index, Terminal Care, United States, Linear Models, Logistic Models, Spirituality, Advance Care Planning, White People

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