2017
DOI: 10.24869/psyd.2017.282
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spiritual Needs of PTSD Patients in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina: A Quantitative Pilot Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
12
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
12
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Family Support Needs was also found to be relevant in the Brazilian PLHIV sample, confirming the former pilot test results; this was different from other countries, where SpNQ was previously translated Glavas et al 2017;Hatamipour et al 2018;Offenbaecher et al 2013), where these items were used only as 'informative' items because of their lack of a 'spiritual' connotation. Data about the spiritual needs of PLHIV in other countries were not found, making it impossible to compare data.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Family Support Needs was also found to be relevant in the Brazilian PLHIV sample, confirming the former pilot test results; this was different from other countries, where SpNQ was previously translated Glavas et al 2017;Hatamipour et al 2018;Offenbaecher et al 2013), where these items were used only as 'informative' items because of their lack of a 'spiritual' connotation. Data about the spiritual needs of PLHIV in other countries were not found, making it impossible to compare data.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The Polynesian version (Nuraeni et al 2015) tested 19 items and for the Iranian and New Zealand English Languages translation there is no information about the tested items (Nejat et al 2016); however, all these translations processes included the four-factor structure: Religious Needs, Existential Needs, Inner Peace Needs, and Giving/Generativity Needs. In the Croatian Language translation process (Glavas et al 2017) version 20 + 3 items was used to calculate the five factor scales, and, as an additional "non-spiritual" category, Social Support Needs (which is like our Family Support Needs scale). For the Persian version, the 19-item version was tested, and the five factors were tested and approved.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evaluation of spiritual needs by SpNQ has proved valuable in varied cultural contexts: China (Büssing et al 2013), Croatia (Glavas et al 2017), Poland (Büssing et al 2015), Indonesia (Nuraeni et al 2015), Iran (Nejat et al 2016), Brazil (Valente et al 2018), and Lithuania (Riklikienė et al 2019). The instrument has been tested in different samples for disease: chronic pain (Büssing et al 2009;2015, p. 11), post-traumatic stress (Glavas et al 2017), cancer (Büssing et al 2010;Riklikienė et al 2019) and HIV+ patients (Valente et al 2018;Silva et al). This study verified the psychometric properties of SpNQ items through item response theory (IRT), an innovative contribution to the SpNQ validity studies, considering the relevance of questionnaires evaluating spiritual needs and their associated constructs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the diversity of translated versions caused some doubt in choosing the model as validation of instrument in other countries used a five factor scale: Religious needs, existential needs, inner peace needs, giving/generativity and forgiveness needs, and adding an additional (independent) category called family support needs [35]. Also, the Croatian [38] version of SpNQ-23 used an additional “non-spiritual” category—social support needs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, SpNQ is intended to collect the information on patient’s spiritual concerns while also being simple in language and content, to start communication with patients about their spirituality and their unmet needs and thus enabling to develop spiritual care plan to address their unmet needs. The SpNQ was translated and validated in the different languages and used in the following countries: Germany [6,27,33,34], Portugal [35], Poland [36], China [37], Croatia [38], Pakistan [39], Brazil [35], Indonesia [40,41], Iran [42,43], etc. Such wide application of the tool, apart from in Anglo-Saxon countries, is usually promising for successful instrument validation in different culture and language.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%