Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961881›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

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

Dirk Labuschagne, Patricia K Palmer, Teresa Deshields, James Gerhart, George Fitchett

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Spirituality and religiosity in cancer care: A targeted review of the NCCN distress thermometer and implications for holistic screening.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Correction to: Testing items to screen for religious or spiritual distress in adult outpatient cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dirk LabuschagneRush University Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy, Suite 028, Annex Building, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. dirk_labuschagne@rush.edu.
Patricia K PalmerEmory University Woodruff Health Sciences Center, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Teresa DeshieldsRush University Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy, Suite 028, Annex Building, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
James GerhartOhio University, Athens, OH, USA.
George FitchettRush University Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy, Suite 028, Annex Building, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsStudy 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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSpiritualityStress, PsychologicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOutpatientsPsychometricsSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesCancerChaplainsOncologyScreeningSpiritual careSpiritual distress

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.