CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 417Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in medical practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physicians and Patient Spirituality: Professional Boundaries, Competency, and Ethics

Post, Stephen G., Puchalski, Christina M., Larson, David B.·2000·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-132-7-200004040-00010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Clinical studies are beginning to clarify how spirituality and religion can contribute to the coping strategies of many patients with severe, chronic, and terminal conditions. The ethical aspects of physician attention to the spiritual and religious dimensions of patients' experiences of illness require review and discussion. Should the physician discuss spiritual issues with his or her patients? What are the boundaries between the physician and patient regarding these issues? What are the professional boundaries between the physician and the chaplain? This article examines the physician-patient relationship and medical ethics at a time when researchers are beginning to appreciate the spiritual aspects of coping with illness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-132-7-200004040-00010

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Foglio JP, 1988, J Fam Pract, 27, 473
  2. Hatch RL, 1998, J Fam Pract, 46, 476
  3. Barnard D, 1995, Acad Med, 70, 806
  4. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(199901/02)8:1<27::AID-PON334>3.0.CO;2-V · DOI
  5. King DE, 1994, J Fam Pract, 39, 349
  6. Maugans TA, 1991, J Fam Pract, 32, 210
  7. McBride JL, 1998, Fam Med, 30, 122
  8. Puchalski CM, 1999, Spirituality & Medicine Connection, 3, 1
  9. Larson DB, 1988, Hosp Community Psychiatry, 39, 1064
  10. Daaleman TP, 1994, J Fam Pract, 36, 564

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Post, S. G., Puchalski, C. M., & Larson, D. B.
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2000-04-04
Volume
132
Issue
7
Pages
578-583
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-132-7-200004040-00010
OpenAlex
W1980401671
Cited by
417
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
patient spirituality, religion and illness, physician-patient relationship, professional boundaries, chaplaincy, medical ethics, physician competence, coping with illness, terminal illness, chronic disease
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Complementary Therapies, Chronic Disease, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Patients, Physician-Patient Relations, Religion and Medicine, Social Values, Spiritualism, Terminally Ill, Spirituality, Empirical Research

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