BackgroundAlthough there is evidence of a relationship between religion/spirituality and mental health, it remains unclear how Brazilian psychiatrists deal with the religion/spirituality of their patients.AimsTo explore whether Brazilian psychiatrists enquire about religion/spirituality in their practice and whether their own beliefs influence their work.MethodFour hundred and eighty-four Brazilian psychiatrists completed a cross-sectional survey on religion/spirituality and clinical practice.ResultsMost psychiatrists had a religious affiliation (67.4%) but more than half of the 484 participants (55.5%) did not usually enquire about patients’ religion/spirituality. The most common reasons for not assessing patients’ religion/spirituality were ‘being afraid of exceeding the role of a doctor’ (30.2%) and ‘lack of training’ (22.3%).ConclusionsVery religious/spiritual psychiatrists were the most likely to ask about their patients’ religion/spirituality. Training in how to deal with a patient’s religiosity might help psychiatrists to develop better patient rapport and may contribute to the patient’s quicker recovery.Declaration of interestNoneCopyright and usage© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

Objective:To examine the relationship between psychiatrists’ religious/spiritual beliefs and their attitudes regarding religion and spirituality in clinical practice.Methods:A cross-sectional survey of religion/spirituality (R/S) in clinical practice was conducted with 121 psychiatrists from the largest academic hospital complex in Brazil.Results:When asked about their R/S beliefs, participants were more likely to consider themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A total of 64.2% considered their religious beliefs to influence their clinical practice and 50% reported that they frequently enquired about their patients’ R/S. The most common barriers to approaching patients’ religiosity were: lack of time (27.4%), fear of exceeding the role of the doctor (25%), and lack of training (19.1%). Those who were less religious or spiritual were also less likely to find difficulties in addressing a patient’s R/S.Conclusion:Differences in psychiatrists’ religious and spiritual beliefs are associated with different attitudes concerning their approach to R/S. The results suggest that medical practice may lead to a religious conflict among devout psychiatrists, making them question their faith. Training might be of importance for handling R/S in clinical practice and for raising awareness about potential evaluative biases in the assessment of patients’ religiosity.

Background Although there is consensus, in psychiatry, over the inclusion of religious and spiritual aspects when evaluating and treating the patient, investigation of these dimensions is rare. There is evidence as to the relationship between psychiatrists’ religious/spiritual beliefs and their willingness to discuss a patient’s religion and spirituality (R/S). Due to the lack of information about how psychiatrists in Brazil deal with R/S in patient care, the aim of the present study is to analyze the religious/spiritual profile of these professionals and to ascertain its influence on attitudes and behavior in clinical practice. Methods Five hundred and ninety-two psychiatrists from Brazil answered a questionnaire about R/S in clinical practice. The latent profile analysis was used to search for differences of religious/spiritual profiles. The ANOVA and Pearson’s chi-square tests were employed to identify any correlation between clinical opinion and behaviors according to the different profiles. Results Two religious/spiritual profiles were identified (entropy value > 0,96): the so called “less religious” group (n = 245), comprised predominantly by men, professionally more experienced, with a higher level of academic education (Master or PhD degrees) and were the ones who least enquired about their patients’ R/S; and the “more religious” psychiatrists (n = 347) those who had higher consideration for R/S on health, and who more often addressed R/S with their patients and therefore usually ascribed importance to include R/S in their professional training. Conclusion The latent profile analysis produced two distinct classes between the Brazilian psychiatrists according to their R/S views: the more religious professionals, who investigate the patient’s R/S in a more detailed manner, and the less religious, who tend to disregard this aspect.

Background In order to facilitate better international and cross-cultural comparisons of health professionals (HPs) attitudes towards Religiosity and/or Spirituality (R/S) using individual participant data meta-analysis we updated the NERSH Data Pool. Methods We performed both a network search, a citation search and systematic literature searches to find new surveys. Results We found six new surveys (N=1,068), and the complete data pool ended up comprising 7,323 observations, including 4,070 females and 3,253 males. Most physicians (83%, N=3,700) believed that R/S had “some” influence on their patients’ health (CI95%) (81.8%–84.2%). Similarly, nurses (94%, N=1,020) shared such a belief (92.5%–95.5%). Across all samples 649 (16%; 14.9%–17.1%) physicians reported to have undergone formal R/S-training, compared with nurses where this was 264 (23%; 20.6%–25.4%). Conclusions Preliminary analysis indicates that HPs believe R/S to be important for patient health but lack formal R/S-training. Findings are discussed. We find the data pool suitable as a base for future cross-cultural comparisons using individual participant data meta-analysis.

Background In order to facilitate better international and cross-cultural comparisons of health professionals (HPs) attitudes towards Religiosity and/or Spirituality (R/S) we updated the NERSH Data Pool. Methods We performed both a network search, a citation search and systematic literature searches to find new surveys. Results We found six new surveys (N=1,068), and the complete data pool ended up comprising 7,323 observations, including 4,070 females and 3,253 males. Most physicians (83%, N=3,700) believed that R/S had “some” influence on their patients’ health (CI95%) (81.8%–84.2%). Similarly, nurses (94%, N=1,020) shared such a belief (92.5%–95.5%). Across all samples 649 (16%; 14.9%–17.1%) physicians reported to have undergone formal R/S-training, compared with nurses where this was 264 (23%; 20.6%–25.4%). Conclusions Preliminary analysis indicates that HPs believe R/S to be important for patient health but lack formal R/S-training. Findings are discussed. We find the data pool suitable as a base for future cross-cultural comparisons using individual participant data meta-analysis.