2022
DOI: 10.1111/jan.15416
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spiritual needs and their associated psychosocial factors among women with breast cancer: A cross‐sectional study

Abstract: Aims: Guided by the biopsychosocial-spiritual model, this study aimed to evaluate the spiritual needs of Chinese women with breast cancer and explored factors associated with those spiritual needs. Design: This study has a cross-sectional design. Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 228 breast cancer patients in China, between May 2019 and July 2019. Data were collected using the general information form, the Spiritual Needs Scale, the Perceived Social Support Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depress… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Twenty‐six studies were quantitative designs and were conducted in mainland China ( n = 18), Taiwan ( n = 6), and the USA ( n = 2). Among them, five studies explored spiritual needs (Cheng et al, 2018; Deng et al, 2015; Du et al, 2022), spiritual state (Cheng et al, 2019), and spiritual nursing needs (Li et al, 2017); 11 studies examined the correlation between spiritual aspects and other variables (Chang et al, 2022; Cho & Lu, 2017; Feng et al, 2021; Guo et al, 2022; Kao et al, 2013; Li et al, 2012, 2022; Tao et al, 2022; Wang & Lin, 2016; Yang et al, 2021; Yeung et al, 2014); seven studies were conducted to translate spirituality‐related instruments originally developed in Western countries into Chinese for use with Chinese people with cancer (Astrow et al, 2012; Lin et al, 2015; Liu et al, 2016; Lo et al, 2016; Tang & Kao, 2017; Xie et al, 2019; Zhao et al, 2019); and three studies aimed to examine the effects of interventions on the spirituality of Chinese people with cancer (Chen et al, 2021; Sun et al, 2021; Xiao et al, 2022). One study with a mixed methods design was conducted in mainland China to explore the quality of life (including a spiritual dimension) of breast cancer survivors (Cheng et al, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Twenty‐six studies were quantitative designs and were conducted in mainland China ( n = 18), Taiwan ( n = 6), and the USA ( n = 2). Among them, five studies explored spiritual needs (Cheng et al, 2018; Deng et al, 2015; Du et al, 2022), spiritual state (Cheng et al, 2019), and spiritual nursing needs (Li et al, 2017); 11 studies examined the correlation between spiritual aspects and other variables (Chang et al, 2022; Cho & Lu, 2017; Feng et al, 2021; Guo et al, 2022; Kao et al, 2013; Li et al, 2012, 2022; Tao et al, 2022; Wang & Lin, 2016; Yang et al, 2021; Yeung et al, 2014); seven studies were conducted to translate spirituality‐related instruments originally developed in Western countries into Chinese for use with Chinese people with cancer (Astrow et al, 2012; Lin et al, 2015; Liu et al, 2016; Lo et al, 2016; Tang & Kao, 2017; Xie et al, 2019; Zhao et al, 2019); and three studies aimed to examine the effects of interventions on the spirituality of Chinese people with cancer (Chen et al, 2021; Sun et al, 2021; Xiao et al, 2022). One study with a mixed methods design was conducted in mainland China to explore the quality of life (including a spiritual dimension) of breast cancer survivors (Cheng et al, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As for the term ‘spirituality’, which is unfamiliar to many Chinese, the phrase ‘writing about my spirituality’ was modified to ‘writing down the spiritual world in my brain’, and specific examples of spiritual resources such as ‘temple’, ‘church’ or ‘other religious sites’ were added (Guo et al, 2022; Li et al, 2017; Xie et al, 2019). Items/questions that were determined to be detrimental to construct validity, based on the results of validity testing/factor analysis, were deleted (Chang et al, 2022; Cheng et al, 2018; Du et al, 2022; Guo et al, 2022; Li et al, 2017; Lin et al, 2015; Tao et al, 2022; Xie et al, 2019; Zhao et al, 2019).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations