Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36807254›Full record

ArticleJournal of religion and health2024

Australian Patient Preferences for Discussing Spiritual Issues in the Hospital Setting: An Exploratory Mixed Methods Study.

Megan C Best, Kate Jones, Frankie Merritt, Michael Casey, Sandra Lynch, John A Eisman, Jeffrey Cohen, Darryl Mackie, Kirsty Beilharz, Matthew Kearney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of religion and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. "Not me!" a qualitative, vignette-based study of nurses' and physicians' reactions to spiritual distress on neuro-oncological units.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Megan C BestInstitute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame Australia, Broadway, PO Box 944, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. megan.best@nd.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-8872
Kate JonesInstitute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame Australia, Broadway, PO Box 944, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5964-3479
Frankie MerrittThe School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7073-6123
Michael CaseyThe School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5734-5630
Sandra LynchInstitute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame Australia, Broadway, PO Box 944, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2465-2498
John A EismanThe School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Jeffrey CohenThe School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-086X
Darryl MackieSt Vincent's Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Kirsty BeilharzExcelsia College, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3109-7795
Matthew KearneySt Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0835-0817

Funding

St Vincent's Health Australia G204St Vincent's Health Australia G208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While there is high patient acceptance for clinical staff discussing issues regarding spirituality with hospital inpatients, it is not clear which staff member patients prefer for these discussions. This unique exploratory study investigated inpatient preferences regarding which staff member should raise the topic of spirituality. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with inpatients at six hospitals in Sydney, Australia (n = 897), with a subset invited to participate in qualitative interviews (n = 41). Pastoral care staff (32.9%) were the preferred staff members with whom to discuss spiritual issues, followed by doctors (22.4%). Qualitative findings indicated that individual characteristics of the staff member are more important than their role.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceSpiritualityAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHospitalsHumansInpatients(3–5) spiritualityHealthcare professionalsPatient–clinician interactionPatient preferencesSpiritual history

Identifiers

PMID36807254
PMCPMC10861658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.