Impact of spiritual interventions in individuals with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nur Izgu , Zehra Gok Metin , Hacer Eroglu , Remziye Semerci , Hatice Pars
{"title":"Impact of spiritual interventions in individuals with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Nur Izgu ,&nbsp;Zehra Gok Metin ,&nbsp;Hacer Eroglu ,&nbsp;Remziye Semerci ,&nbsp;Hatice Pars","doi":"10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This meta-analysis aimed to determine how spiritual interventions affect cancer patients’ physical, emotional, and spiritual outcomes and quality of life.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Between 2012 and May 2024, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched considering the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials were included, and 16 were synthesized in the meta-analysis. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias methodology for randomized studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations tool was employed for evidence certainty. Heterogeneity was expressed through I<sup>2</sup> and Q statistics. Hedge's g was calculated for effect sizes. Egger's and Kendall's Tau were used for publication bias.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Spiritual interventions yielded beneficial effects on fatigue (Hedges's g = 0.900, p &lt; 0.001) and pain (Hedges's g = 0.670, p &lt; 0.001) but not for overall symptom burden (Hedges's g = 0.208, p = 0.176). Significant effects were found for anxiety (Hedges's g = 0.301, p &lt; 0.001), depression (Hedges's g = 0.175, p = 0.016), and psychological distress (Hedges's g = 0.178, p = 0.024), except for hopelessness (Hedges's g = 0.144, p = 0.091). Spiritual interventions enhanced faith (Hedges's g = 0.232, p = 0.035), the meaning of life (Hedges's g = 0.259, p = 0.002), spiritual well-being (Hedges's g = 0.268, p &lt; 0.001), and quality of life (Hedges's g = 245, p &lt; 0.001). Moderator analysis pointed out that cancer stage, total duration, delivery format, providers' qualification, content, and conceptual base of spiritual interventions significantly affect physical, emotional, and spiritual outcomes and quality of life.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This meta-analysis highlighted the benefits of spiritual interventions with varying effect sizes on patients’ outcomes, as well as quality of life in cancer, and shed on how to incorporate these approaches into clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51048,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924001443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This meta-analysis aimed to determine how spiritual interventions affect cancer patients’ physical, emotional, and spiritual outcomes and quality of life.

Methods

Between 2012 and May 2024, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched considering the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials were included, and 16 were synthesized in the meta-analysis. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias methodology for randomized studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations tool was employed for evidence certainty. Heterogeneity was expressed through I2 and Q statistics. Hedge's g was calculated for effect sizes. Egger's and Kendall's Tau were used for publication bias.

Results

Spiritual interventions yielded beneficial effects on fatigue (Hedges's g = 0.900, p < 0.001) and pain (Hedges's g = 0.670, p < 0.001) but not for overall symptom burden (Hedges's g = 0.208, p = 0.176). Significant effects were found for anxiety (Hedges's g = 0.301, p < 0.001), depression (Hedges's g = 0.175, p = 0.016), and psychological distress (Hedges's g = 0.178, p = 0.024), except for hopelessness (Hedges's g = 0.144, p = 0.091). Spiritual interventions enhanced faith (Hedges's g = 0.232, p = 0.035), the meaning of life (Hedges's g = 0.259, p = 0.002), spiritual well-being (Hedges's g = 0.268, p < 0.001), and quality of life (Hedges's g = 245, p < 0.001). Moderator analysis pointed out that cancer stage, total duration, delivery format, providers' qualification, content, and conceptual base of spiritual interventions significantly affect physical, emotional, and spiritual outcomes and quality of life.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis highlighted the benefits of spiritual interventions with varying effect sizes on patients’ outcomes, as well as quality of life in cancer, and shed on how to incorporate these approaches into clinical practice.

精神干预对癌症患者的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:这项荟萃分析旨在确定精神干预如何影响癌症患者的身体、情感和精神治疗效果以及生活质量:方法:2012年至2024年5月期间,根据系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目清单,对Cochrane图书馆、Scopus、PubMed和Web of Science进行了检索。共纳入 26 项随机对照试验,并对其中 16 项进行了荟萃分析。采用 Cochrane 随机研究偏倚风险方法对偏倚风险进行了评估。对证据的确定性采用了 "推荐、评估、发展和评价分级 "工具。异质性通过 I2 和 Q 统计量来表示。效应大小采用 Hedge's g 计算。Egger's 和 Kendall's Tau 则用于检测发表偏倚:精神干预对疲劳产生了有益的影响(Hedges's g = 0.900,p 结论:精神干预对疲劳产生了有益的影响(Hedges's g = 0.900,p 结论:精神干预对疲劳产生了有益的影响:这项荟萃分析强调了不同效应大小的精神干预对癌症患者预后和生活质量的益处,并阐明了如何将这些方法纳入临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
109
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Oncology Nursing is an international journal which publishes research of direct relevance to patient care, nurse education, management and policy development. EJON is proud to be the official journal of the European Oncology Nursing Society. The journal publishes the following types of papers: • Original research articles • Review articles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信