Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42736928›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Spiritual Needs Scale for Older Adults Receiving Palliative Care.

Linan Cheng, Qian Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Linan ChengSchool of Nursing, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325035, China.
Qian ChenDepartment of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0953-3845

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeeting the spiritual needs of older adults receiving palliative care requires culturally sensitive and psychometrically sound assessment instruments. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spiritual Needs Scale (SNS) for older adults receiving palliative care.

methodsThe primary version of the SNS was developed through a scoping review, in-depth interviews, Rodgers' concept analysis, and expert consultation. A consecutive sample of 395 older adults receiving palliative care was recruited from the inpatient wards of two university-affiliated hospitals to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SNS. Validity assessment included content, face, and construct validity, while reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha and test-retest measures. Additionally, ceiling and floor effects were examined.

resultsThe SNS consists of 40 items. The scale demonstrated excellent content validity, with an S-CVI/Ave of 0.98 and an S-CVI/UA of 0.77. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed six factors that explain 65.595% of the total variance, which included connection with oneself and others, transcendence, connection with nature, reflection on life's meaning, seeking life's meaning, and a sense of belonging. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.963, with coefficients for the six factors ranging from 0.852 to 0.920. The scale's retest reliability was 0.853.

conclusionsThe SNS demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability for assessing the spiritual needs of older adults receiving palliative care. Further studies are needed to validate the scale in different cultural and clinical populations.

Indexed as

older adultspalliative carepsychometric evaluationspiritual needs

Identifiers

PMID42736928
PMCPMC13565795

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.