Author
Listed:
- Elizabeth Palmer Kelly
(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA)
- Brian Myers
(The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA)
- Brent Henderson
(Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA)
- Petra Sprik
(Department of Supportive Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA)
- Kelsey B. White
(Department of Health Management & System Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA)
- Timothy M. Pawlik
(Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA)
Abstract
Background Providers often underestimate the influence of patient religious and spiritual (R&S) needs. The current study sought to determine the influence of R&S beliefs on treatment decision making among patients and providers in the context of cancer care. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature using web-based search engines and discipline-specific databases. Search terms included a combination of the following Medical Subject Headings and key terms: “cancer,†“spirituality,†“religion,†and “decision making.†We used Covidence to screen relevant studies and extracted data into Microsoft Excel. Results Among 311 screened studies, 32 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated the patient perspective ( n = 29), while 2 studies evaluated the provider perspective and 1 study examined both. In assessing patient R&S relative to treatment decision making, we thematically characterized articles according to decision-making contexts, including general ( n = 11), end-of-life/advance care planning ( n = 13), and other: specific ( n = 8). Specific contexts included, but were not limited to, clinical trial participation ( n = 2) and use of complementary and alternative medicine ( n = 4). Within end-of-life/advance care planning, there was a discrepancy regarding how R&S influenced treatment decision making. The influence of R&S on general treatment decision making was both active and passive, with some patients wanting more direct integration of their R&S beliefs in treatment decision making. In contrast, other patients were less aware of indirect R&S influences. Patient perception of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making varied relative to race/ethnicity, being more pronounced among Black patients. Conclusion Most articles focused on R&S relative to treatment decision making at the end of life, even though R&S appeared important across the care continuum. To improve patient-centered cancer care, providers need to be more aware of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making.
Suggested Citation
Elizabeth Palmer Kelly & Brian Myers & Brent Henderson & Petra Sprik & Kelsey B. White & Timothy M. Pawlik, 2022.
"The Influence of Patient and Provider Religious and Spiritual Beliefs on Treatment Decision Making in the Cancer Care Context,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 125-134, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:125-134
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211022246
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:125-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.