D'Youville College, School of Nursing, Buffalo, New York, USA.
J Adv Nurs. 2011 Aug;67(8):1677-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05596.x. Epub 2011 Mar 4.
This paper is a report of a methodological review conducted to analyse, evaluate and synthesize the rigour of measures found in nursing and health-related literature used to assess and evaluate patient spirituality as more than religiosity.
Holistic healthcare practitioners recognize important distinctions exist about what constitutes spiritual care needs and preferences and what constitutes religious care needs and preferences in patient care practice.
Databases searched, limited to the years 1982 and 2009, included AMED, Alt Health Watch, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCO Host, EBSCO Host Religion and Philosophy, ERIC, Google Scholar, HAPI, HUBNET, IngentaConnect, Mental Measurements Yearbook Online, Ovid MEDLINE, Social Work Abstracts and Hill and Hood's Measures of Religiosity text.
A methodological review was carried out. Measures assessing spirituality as more than religiosity were critically reviewed including quality appraisal, relevant data extraction and a narrative synthesis of findings.
Ten measures fitting inclusion criteria were included in the review. Despite agreement among nursing and health-related disciplines that spirituality and religiosity are distinct and diverse concepts, the concept of spirituality was often used interchangeably with the concept religion to assess and evaluate patient spirituality. The term spiritual or spirituality was used in a preponderance of items to assess or evaluate spirituality.
Measures differentiating spirituality from religiosity are grossly lacking in nursing and health-related literature.
本文是一份方法学综述报告，旨在分析、评估和综合护理学及健康相关文献中用于评估和评价患者精神性（超越宗教性）的测量工具的严谨性。
整体医疗保健从业者认识到，在患者护理实践中，构成精神关怀需求和偏好的因素，与构成宗教关怀需求和偏好的因素之间存在重要区别。
仅在 1982 年至 2009 年间，对 AMED、Alt Health Watch、CINAHL Plus with Full Text、EBSCO 主机、EBSCO 主机宗教与哲学、ERIC、Google Scholar、HAPI、HUBNET、IngentaConnect、心理测量年鉴在线、Ovid MEDLINE、社会科学文摘和 Hill and Hood 的宗教信仰量表等数据库进行了检索。
进行了方法学综述。对评估精神性（超越宗教性）的测量工具进行了严格审查，包括质量评估、相关数据提取以及结果的叙述性综合。
综述纳入了符合纳入标准的 10 项测量工具。尽管护理和健康相关学科一致认为精神性和宗教性是不同的、多样化的概念，但在评估和评价患者精神性时，精神性这一概念经常与宗教概念互换使用。在评估或评价精神性时，绝大多数项目都使用了“精神性”或“精神性”一词。
护理学及健康相关文献中严重缺乏能够区分精神性和宗教性的测量工具。
