The impact of spirituality on coping with head and neck cancer: a systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5327/prmj.1010Keywords:
spirituality, head and neck neoplasms, quality of life, coping skillsAbstract
Purpose: To synthesize scientific evidence on the relationship between spirituality and psychosocial coping outcomes in adults with head and neck cancer. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Observational studies evaluating spirituality, religiosity, or spiritual coping in individuals with head and neck cancer were included. Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library, SciELO, and ScienceDirect. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Due to methodological heterogeneity, results were synthesized narratively. Results: Three studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, higher levels of spirituality or religiosity were associated with better perceived quality of life, greater acceptance of illness, and more adaptive coping experiences. However, the studies were observational, presented methodological variability, and had moderate risk of bias, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence. Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that spirituality is related to psychosocial aspects of coping in head and neck cancer. Nevertheless, limitations of the existing studies preclude causal inferences. Further longitudinal research and studies exploring structured spiritual care approaches are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
Downloads
References
1. Mendonça AB, Pereira ER, Magnago C, Silva RMCRA, Meira KC, Martins AO. Distress and the religious and spiritual coping of Brazilians living with cancer: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020;48:101825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101825
2. Jagannathan A, Juvva S. Emotions and coping of patients with head and neck cancers after diagnosis: A qualitative content analysis. J Postgrad Med. 2016;62(3):143-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0022-3859.184273
3. Reis LBM, Leles CR, Freire MCM. Religiosity, spirituality, and the quality of life of patients with sequelae of head and neck cancer. Oral Dis. 2020;26(4):838-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13284
4. Chang T, Huang P, Hsu C, Yen T. Demoralization in oral cancer inpatients and its association with spiritual needs, quality of life, and suicidal ideation: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01962-6
5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffman TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
6. Pieper D, Rombey T. Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1
7. Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):420-31. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345
8. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan — A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
9. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Reviewer’s Manual. JBI; 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
11. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
12. Borrell-Carrió F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The Biopsychosocial Model 25 Years Later: Principles, Practice, and Scientific Inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):576-82. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.245

