Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Apr;41(4):728-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.06.023.
Despite the need to assess spiritual outcomes in palliative care, little is known about the properties of the tools currently used to do so. In addition, measures of spirituality have been criticized in the literature for cultural bias, and it is unclear which tools have been validated cross-culturally.
This systematic review aimed to identify and categorize spiritual outcome measures validated in advanced cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or palliative care populations; to assess the tools' cross-cultural applicability; and for those measures validated cross-culturally, to determine and categorize the concepts used to measure spirituality.
Eight databases were searched to identify relevant validation and research studies. An extensive search strategy included search terms in three categories: palliative care, spirituality, and outcome measurement. Tools were evaluated according to two criteria: 1) validation in advanced cancer, HIV, or palliative care and 2) validation in an ethnically diverse context. Tools that met Criterion 1 were categorized by type; tools that also met Criterion 2 were subjected to content analysis to identify and categorize the spiritual concepts they use.
One hundred ninety-one articles were identified, yielding 85 tools. Fifty different tools had been reported in research studies; however, 30 of these had not been validated in palliative care populations. Thirty-eight tools met Criterion 1: general multidimensional measures (n=21), functional measures (n=11), and substantive measures (n=6). Nine measures met Criterion 2; these used spiritual concepts relating to six themes: Beliefs, practices, and experiences; Relationships; Spiritual resources; Outlook on life/self; Outlook on death/dying; and Indicators of spiritual well-being. A conceptual model of spirituality is presented on the basis of the content analysis. Recommendations include consideration of both the clinical and cultural population in which spiritual instruments have been validated when selecting an appropriate measure for research purposes. Areas in need of further research are identified.
The nine tools identified in this review are those that have currently been validated in cross-cultural palliative care populations and, subject to appraisal of their psychometric properties, may be suitable for cross-cultural research.
尽管需要评估姑息治疗中的精神结果,但对于目前用于评估精神结果的工具的特性却知之甚少。此外,在文献中,一些精神测量工具因文化偏见而受到批评,目前尚不清楚哪些工具已经在跨文化环境中得到验证。
本系统评价旨在识别和分类在晚期癌症、人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)或姑息治疗人群中得到验证的精神结果测量工具;评估这些工具的跨文化适用性;对于那些在跨文化环境中得到验证的测量工具,确定和分类用于测量精神的概念。
在八个数据库中搜索相关的验证和研究文章。一个广泛的搜索策略包括三个类别中的搜索词:姑息治疗、精神和结果测量。根据两个标准评估工具:1)在晚期癌症、HIV 或姑息治疗中得到验证,2)在种族多样化的背景下得到验证。符合标准 1 的工具按类型进行分类;符合标准 2 的工具则进行内容分析,以确定和分类它们所使用的精神概念。
共确定了 191 篇文章,其中有 85 种工具。在研究中报告了 50 种不同的工具;然而,其中 30 种工具尚未在姑息治疗人群中得到验证。38 种工具符合标准 1:通用多维测量工具(n=21)、功能测量工具(n=11)和实质性测量工具(n=6)。9 种工具符合标准 2;这些工具使用的精神概念涉及六个主题:信仰、实践和经验;关系;精神资源;人生观/自我;人生观/死亡/临终;以及精神幸福感的指标。根据内容分析,提出了一个精神概念模型。建议在为研究目的选择适当的测量工具时,同时考虑已验证的精神工具的临床和文化人群。确定了需要进一步研究的领域。
本评价中确定的 9 种工具是那些在跨文化姑息治疗人群中得到验证的工具,并且在评估其心理测量特性后,可能适用于跨文化研究。