Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35059963›Full record

ArticleJournal of religion and health2022

Factors Influencing Military Personnel Utilizing Chaplains: A Literature Scoping Review.

Mark D Layson, Katie Tunks Leach, Lindsay B Carey, Megan C Best

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of religion and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mark D LaysonFaculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia. mlayson@csu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8310-1303
Katie Tunks LeachUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5195-4782
Lindsay B CareyPalliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-7798
Megan C BestInstitute for Ethics and Society at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-8872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chaplains have been embedded in military settings for over a millennium. In recent years however, the decline in spiritual/religious (S/R) affiliation of military personnel across Western cultures has led to some commentators questioning the utilization of religious chaplains by defence personnel. This scoping review maps the literature on S/R and non-S/R factors that influence utilizing military chaplains-with a particular emphasis on the Australian military context. A systematic scoping review of tertiary literature databases using Arksey and O'Malley (2003) and Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies (JBI, 2021), revealed a total of 33 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Results fell into three broad categories: (i) how personal religious views influence utilization of military chaplaincy, (ii) barriers and enablers to personnel utilizing military chaplains, and (iii) the impact of chaplaincy. Despite the current reduction in religiosity in Western society, findings from this scoping review suggest there is little evidence that low religiosity among military personnel forms a significant barrier to utilizing chaplaincy services. To the contrary, the literature revealed that chaplains provide trusted, confidential, and holistic support for military personnel that if diminished or compromised would leave a substantial gap in staff well-being services.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelPastoral CareAustraliaClergyHumansChaplaincyMilitary chaplainsReligionSecularismSpirituality

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.