This review demonstrated that many patients have a strong interest in discussing spirituality in the medical consultation. Doctors should endeavor to identify which patients would welcome such conversations.

Background: The EAPC White Paper addresses the issue of spiritual care education for all palliative care professionals. It is to guide health care professionals involved in teaching or training of palliative care and spiritual care; stakeholders, leaders and decision makers responsible for training and education; as well as national and local curricula development groups. Methods: Early in 2018, preliminary draft paper was written by members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) spiritual care reference group inviting comment on the four core elements of spiritual care education as outlined by Gamondi et al. (2013) in their paper on palliative care core competencies. The preliminary draft paper was circulated to experts from the EAPC spiritual care reference group for feedback. At the second stage feedback was incorporated into a second draft paper and experts and representatives of national palliative care organizations were invited to provide feedback and suggest revisions. The final version incorporated the subsequent criticism and as a result, the Gamondi framework was explored and critically revised leading to updated suggestions for spiritual care education in palliative care. Results: The EAPC white paper points out the importance of spiritual care as an integral part of palliative care and suggests incorporating it accordingly into educational activities and training models in palliative care. The revised spiritual care education competencies for all palliative care providers are accompanied by the best practice models and research evidence, at the same time being sensitive towards different development stages of the palliative care services across the European region. Conclusions: Better education can help the healthcare practitioner to avoid being distracted by their own fears, prejudices, and restraints and attend to the patient and his/her family. This EAPC white paper encourages and facilitates high quality, multidisciplinary , academically and financially accessible spiritual care education to all palliative care staff.

This review found that physician enquiry into the religion and/or spirituality of patients is inconsistent in frequency and nature and that in order to meet patient needs, barriers to discussion need to be overcome.

The systematic review revealed that suffering includes holistic suffering, which is multidimensional, oscillating, individual and difficult for individuals to express. Opportunities should be provided for patients to express their suffering. The potential for suffering to be transcended needs to be recognized and facilitated by healthcare staff.

ObjectivesThe importance of ‘whole person’ or ‘holistic’ care is widely recognised, particularly with an increasing prevalence of chronic multimorbidity internationally. This approach to care is a defining feature of general practice. However, its precise meaning remains ambiguous. We aimed to determine how the term ‘whole person’ care is understood by general practitioners (GPs), and whether it is synonymous with ‘[w]holistic’ and ‘biopsychosocial’ care.DesignSystematic literature review.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, Science.gov (Health and Medicine database), Google Scholar and included studies’ reference lists were searched with an unlimited date range. Systematic or literature reviews, original research, theoretical articles or books/book chapters; specific to general practice; relevant to the research question; and published in English were included. Included literature was critically appraised, and data were extracted and analysed using thematic synthesis.ResultsFifty publications were included from 4297 non-duplicate records retrieved. Six themes were identified: a multidimensional, integrated approach; the importance of the therapeutic relationship; acknowledging doctors’ humanity; recognising patients’ individual personhood; viewing health as more than absence of disease; and employing a range of treatment modalities. Whole person, biopsychosocial and holistic terminology were often used interchangeably, but were not synonymous.ConclusionsWhole person, holistic and biopsychosocial terminology are primarily characterised by a multidimensional approach to care and incorporate additional elements described above. Whole person care probably represents the closest representation of the basis for general practice. Health systems aiming to provide whole person care need to address the challenge of integrating the care of other health professionals, and maintaining the patient–doctor relationship central to the themes identified. Further research is required to clarify the representativeness of the findings, and the relative importance GPs’ assign to each theme.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058824.

Spirituality is a universal phenomenon. Patients in a secular society want their doctor to take an interest in their spiritual support and facilitate access to it during illness.

No abstract

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing in oncology are well known, however, it is unclear how these findings will generalize to more complex genomic testing. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were published from January 2003 to January 2017 and addressed psychological and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing in adults. A review of four databases identified 9620 abstracts, with 22 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included articles, 11 studies reported on outcomes of germline testing, with three articles assessing panel testing and eight SNP testing. No studies assessed the outcomes of WGS or WES. Eleven articles assessed the outcomes of somatic testing, including testing for cancer prognosis and for personalized therapies. Studies were biased toward breast cancer and Caucasian women with high education and socioeconomic status. While studies demonstrated limited adverse psychological outcomes associated with genomic testing, a lack of consistency in psychosocial measures precluded any meta-analysis. Changes in health behavior following positive results were limited, and in some cases risk perception was not altered following genomic testing. There is limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes and changes in health behavior following genomic testing to assess cancer risk. Findings from this review highlight the need for longitudinal research with superior methodological and theoretical design.