Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3145
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The 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.
Methods: The 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.
Results: Study 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.
Conclusion: This 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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09260-9 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!