Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
  1. B Vivat1,
  2. T Young2,
  3. J Winstanley3,
  4. JI Arraras4,
  5. MI Bennett5,
  6. A Brédart6,
  7. A Costantini7,
  8. SE Fisher8,
  9. E Greimel9,
  10. J Guo10,
  11. ME Irarrazaval11,
  12. K Kobayashi12,
  13. R Kruizinga13,
  14. M Navarro14,
  15. S Omidvari15,
  16. GE Rohde16,
  17. S Serpentini17,
  18. HWM van Laarhoven13 and
  19. G Yang18
  1. 1Brunel University, UK
  2. 2Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
  3. 3University of Sydney, Australia
  4. 4Hospital de Navarra, Spain
  5. 5University of Leeds, UK
  6. 6Institut Curie, France
  7. 7Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Italy
  8. 8St Gemma's Hospice & Academic Unit of Palliative Care, University of Leeds, UK
  9. 9Medical University Graz, Austria
  10. 10Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, China
  11. 11Calidad de Vida, Instituto Oncologico Fundacion Arturo Lopez Perez, Chile
  12. 12Saitama International Medical Centre, Japan
  13. 13University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  14. 14Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico
  15. 15Tehran University Medical School, Islamic Republic of Iran
  16. 16University of Agder, & Sorlandet Hospital, Norway
  17. 17Psycho-Oncology Service/Palliative Care Unit, Bassano del Grappa, Italy
  18. 18Palliative Medicine, National Cancer Centre Singapore, China


    Introduction Spiritual care and spiritual wellbeing (SWB) are central to palliative care, but no measures of SWB have yet been developed cross-culturally.

    Aim(s) and method(s) In 2002 the EORTC Quality of Life (QL) Group began international development of an SWB measure for palliative patients. Three domains of SWB were initially hypothesised, and items developed accordingly. Data for Phase IV field-testing and validation of the measure were collected from January 2012 to July 2013. Participants completed the 36-item provisional SWB measure and a structured debriefing interview. EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, socio-demographic and clinical data were also collected, and a sub-set of test-retest data. The scale structure was assessed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Rasch analysis and further validity explored using known group comparisons.

    Results 458 patients from 14 countries took part; 188 Christian, 50 Muslim, 23 Buddhist, and 158 with no religion. All items showed good score distribution. 275 patients (60%) found no items problematic, but small percentages indicated difficulties with 6 items. Combining patient feedback with PCA and Rasch analysis led to deletion of a few items. Four distinct domains explain 53% of the variance. No remarkable differential item functioning (DIF) was found for age, sex, geographical region or belief in God. Goodness of fit measures were within guidelines. Global SWB correlated weakly with global QL.

    Conclusion(s) This EORTC measure of SWB is available for use in palliative care research and practice, and has both measurement and intervention characteristics. Future studies will specifically recruit people in minority religious and/or ethnic communities under-represented in this already diverse sample.

    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care
    • Supportive care

    Statistics from

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Linked Articles

    • Correction
      British Medical Journal Publishing Group