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 , Zehra Gok Metin , Hacer Eroglu , Remziye Semerci , 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 < 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.</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.
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