ArticleCureus2025
Intersection of Religious Beliefs and Healthcare in Germany: A Guide to Integrating Religious Diversity in Medical Practice.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The increasing diversity in Germany's population necessitates the application of culturally sensitive medical care. Religious and cultural beliefs significantly influence patient behavior and healthcare decisions. However, healthcare providers often lack knowledge in cultural beliefs related to medical treatment, particularly regarding minority religions such as Islam, the second-largest religious group in Germany. Addressing these gaps through medical education is essential for fostering intercultural competence and improving patient-centered care. Objective This pilot study assesses the knowledge of German medical students and a multi-faith expert group regarding Islamic-ethical principles in healthcare. Furthermore, expert interviews across multiple religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Bahá'í, Jainism) explore additional faith-based considerations in clinical practice. In this context, the study aims to (1) identify knowledge gaps concerning religiously informed healthcare preferences, (2) generate foundational insights to inform medical education and promote culturally sensitive, patient-centered care, and (3) offer an insight into religious beliefs related to healthcare as an integral part of culture. Methods For this pilot study, a custom multiple-choice (MC) questionnaire on Islamic-ethical principles was administered to 50 medical students (ST) and an expert group (E, n = 6) comprising clinicians and religious authorities from the aforementioned faiths. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted with each expert to gain deeper insights into religion-specific considerations relevant to medical care. Results The MC questions on dietary regulations and gender relations were mostly answered correctly (84% and 92%, respectively). However, overall, both students and experts demonstrated limited knowledge of Islamic-ethical principles in healthcare. This was reflected in the fact that students did not answer any of the related questions with complete accuracy, while experts achieved fully accurate responses in only 50% of the cases. The results of the interviews were summarized, providing a detailed comparison of eight categories influencing medical treatment across Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, and Jainism. Conclusion Our study serves as an initial guide to fostering awareness and sensitivity in intercultural patient care in Germany. The complexity and diversity of interpretations within each faith, depending on personal and cultural preferences, have to be considered in personalized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.