ArticleJournal of religion and health2026
Between Divine Will and Medical Responsibility: A Conceptual Framework for Faith-Informed Family Decision-Making involving Serious Illness in the Philippines.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Faith shapes how patients and families interpret serious illness, prognosis, treatment burden, hope, and moral responsibility, yet existing approaches insufficiently explain how spiritual meanings interact with relational authority and structural constraints. This conceptual article develops the Faith-Informed Relational Health Decision Framework for adult serious-illness decision-making in the Philippines. Integrating shared decision-making and relational autonomy, the framework distinguishes patient decision-making with capacity, family-assisted deliberation, and legitimate surrogate representation when capacity is absent. Its primary unit of analysis is the deliberative process surrounding a particular serious-illness decision episode. The framework organizes deliberation across four interacting dimensions: clinical evidence and prognosis, spiritual interpretation, relational participation and power, and structural access to care. Faith-clinical deliberative alignment describes the process quality through which these dimensions are integrated without prognostic distortion, coercion, spiritual dismissal, displacement of patient values, or abandonment of professional responsibility. Alignment denotes deliberative integration rather than agreement, consensus, treatment adherence, or conformity with clinical recommendations. Complementary alignment, tense but negotiable deliberation, and critical misalignment are proposed as overlapping and changeable heuristic configurations. The framework also differentiates sustaining miracle hope, contingent miracle hope, and exclusive miracle expectation. Sustaining and contingent hope may overlap, whereas exclusive expectation is understood as possible decisional closure rather than automatically as irrational, unethical, or critically misaligned. Ethical concern depends on decisional capacity, prognostic understanding, voluntariness, treatment burden, patient goals, professional limits, and openness to alternative outcomes. The framework offers a culturally responsive, structurally aware, and empirically examinable basis for research and practice concerning religion, family relationships, and serious-illness care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911536What 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.