Testing items to screen for religious or spiritual distress in adult outpatient cancer care.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Dirk Labuschagne, Patricia K Palmer, Teresa Deshields, James Gerhart, George Fitchett
{"title":"Testing items to screen for religious or spiritual distress in adult outpatient cancer care.","authors":"Dirk Labuschagne, Patricia K Palmer, Teresa Deshields, James Gerhart, George Fitchett","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09260-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The experience of cancer diagnosis and treatment is associated with significant stress. While religion and spirituality (R/S) can provide crucial support, many patients also experience R/S distress. Screening for distress has gained recognition, with tools evolving to address spiritual needs; however, existing screening measures have limitations. This study aims to validate screening items for R/S distress among cancer patients undergoing treatment, using a standardized chaplain assessment as a reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study involved adult cancer patients undergoing outpatient treatment at Rush Cancer Center. Procedures included researcher-administered screening questions and the ONC-5 spiritual assessment interview with a board-certified chaplain. Data included demographics, illness variables, and R/S measures. Eight single-item and two multi-item screening measures were evaluated against the ONC-5. Analysis entailed descriptive statistics and sensitivity/specificity determination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study participants (N = 71) were predominantly female (53.5%) with common cancers (breast, colon/rectum, and lung). R/S distress was evident in 19.7%. Single-item screeners exhibited sensitivities from 14 to 71% and specificities from 72 to 98%. The King 2-question combination showed 71% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The Rush protocol demonstrated 36% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Post hoc analyses of two-item combinations did not enhance sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study evaluated R/S distress screening items among outpatient cancer patients. The single-item screener asking whether participants' R/S provided all the strength and comfort needed now performed best with a sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 83%, respectively. Despite limitations, our findings underscore the importance of refining R/S distress screening tools in oncology care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 3","pages":"198"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09260-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The experience of cancer diagnosis and treatment is associated with significant stress. While religion and spirituality (R/S) can provide crucial support, many patients also experience R/S distress. Screening for distress has gained recognition, with tools evolving to address spiritual needs; however, existing screening measures have limitations. This study aims to validate screening items for R/S distress among cancer patients undergoing treatment, using a standardized chaplain assessment as a reference standard.

Methods: The study involved adult cancer patients undergoing outpatient treatment at Rush Cancer Center. Procedures included researcher-administered screening questions and the ONC-5 spiritual assessment interview with a board-certified chaplain. Data included demographics, illness variables, and R/S measures. Eight single-item and two multi-item screening measures were evaluated against the ONC-5. Analysis entailed descriptive statistics and sensitivity/specificity determination.

Results: Study participants (N = 71) were predominantly female (53.5%) with common cancers (breast, colon/rectum, and lung). R/S distress was evident in 19.7%. Single-item screeners exhibited sensitivities from 14 to 71% and specificities from 72 to 98%. The King 2-question combination showed 71% sensitivity and 63% specificity. The Rush protocol demonstrated 36% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Post hoc analyses of two-item combinations did not enhance sensitivity.

Conclusion: This study evaluated R/S distress screening items among outpatient cancer patients. The single-item screener asking whether participants' R/S provided all the strength and comfort needed now performed best with a sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 83%, respectively. Despite limitations, our findings underscore the importance of refining R/S distress screening tools in oncology care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
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