ReviewThe Permanente journal2026
FICA and HOPE in Clinical Care: A Narrative Review Comparing 2 Spiritual Screening Tools Used by Physicians.
Review in The Permanente journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to compare the FICA (faith, importance/influence, community, address in care) and HOPE (sources of hope, organized religion, personal spirituality/practices, effects on care) spiritual screening tools across multiple domains, including clinical utility, implementation feasibility, and psychometric properties, in order to synthesize evidence and provide guidance to health care practitioners and educators regarding the relative strengths and limitations of the 2 tools. This review of published literature involved a structured search in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO, from which 2 reviewers independently screened, extracted, and synthesized data using predefined criteria. The studies included in the review assessed the use of the FICA and/or HOPE tools with adult patient populations and health care professionals in multiple countries, primarily within academic and hospital-based settings. FICA was more frequently used in clinical and educational settings and was noted for its structured format and integration into serious illness care. Meanwhile, HOPE was noted for its open-ended format and greater flexibility in exploring personal spirituality, particularly among patients identifying as spiritual but not religious. Although there does not seem to be research validating or using psychometric resources to analyze these tools, qualitative studies indicated their perceived value in enhancing holistic care. Both FICA and HOPE are valuable frameworks for initiating spiritual screenings in clinical practice. FICA may be more suitable in fast-paced environments because of its concise structure, whereas HOPE offers greater depth and personalization. Further research should focus on developing validated outcome measures and examining the impact of spiritual screenings on patient care.
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.