PurposeFor many patients confronted with chronic diseases, spirituality/religiosity is a relevant resource to cope. While most studies on patients' spiritual needs refer to the care of patients at the end of life, our intention was to develop an instrument to measure spiritual, existential and psychosocial need of patients with chronic diseases.MethodsIn an anonymous cross-sectional survey, we applied the Spiritual Needs Questionnaire (SpNQ version 1.2.) to 210 patients (75% women, mean age 54 ± 12 years) with chronic pain conditions (67%), cancer (28%), other chronic conditions (5%). Patients were recruited at the Community Hospital Herdecke, the Institute for Complementary Medicine (University of Bern), and at a conference of a cancer support group in Herten.ResultsFactor analysis of the 19-item instrument (Cronbach's alpha = .93) pointed to 4 factors which explain 67% of variance: Religious Needs, Need for Inner Peace, Existentialistic Needs (Reflection/Meaning), and Actively Giving. Within the main sample of patients with chronic pain and cancer, Needs for Inner Peace had the highest scores, followed by Self competent Attention; Existentialistic Needs had low scores, while the Religious Needs scores indicate no interest. Patients with cancer had significantly higher SpNQ scores than patients with chronic pain conditions. There were just some weak associations between Actively Giving and life satisfaction (r = .17; p = .012), and negatively with the symptom score (r = -.29; p < .0001); Need for Inner Peace was weakly associated with satisfaction with treatment efficacy (r = .24; p < .0001). Regression analyses reveal that the underlying disease (i.e., cancer) was of outstanding relevance for the patients' spiritual needs.ConclusionThe preliminary results indicate that spiritual needs are conceptually different from life satisfaction, and can be interpreted as the patients' longing for spiritual well-being. Methods how health care professionals may meet their patients' spiritual needs remain to be explored.

ObjectiveWe intended to determine the reliability of a brief life satisfaction scale in a sample of patients with chronic diseases, and to analyze its external validity.MethodsReliability and factor analysis of the 8-item 'Brief Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale' (BMLSS) were performed according to standard procedures. The test sample contained 979 individuals (mean age 54 ± 11 years). Forty-two percent had cancer, 22% chronic pain conditions, 10% depressive disorders, 6% other chronic diseases, and 20% were healthy.ResultsReliability analysis of the 8-item pool revealed a good internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's alpha = .869), and a single-factor structure which explains 53% of variance. The BMLSS sum scores significantly differed with respect to the underlying disease, family status, duration of disease, and age. The highest scores were found in healthy individuals, and the lowest in patients with chronic pain conditions and depressive disorders. In cancer patients, the BMLSS correlated negatively with Depression/Anxiety (HADS), Fatigue (CFS-D), and positively with SF-12's mental health and to a weaker content also with physical health. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that life satisfaction can be predicted best by (the absence of) depression, but also by Conscious Living (AKU), which is an active cognitive-behavioral style in terms of adaptive coping.ConclusionsThe evaluation of the BMLSS revealed that the instrument has good psychometric properties and can be regarded as a brief, reliable and valid measure of LS in patients with chronic diseases. The instrument can be an important additive to existing health-related quality of life questionnaires, since it captures dimensions that contribute to quality of life but are not health related.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant existing evidence, and critically appraises the use of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in cancer care. Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted in order to investigate the effect of MBSR on quality of life (QoL), mood, and distress. Besides 6 reviews (5 systematic, 1 meta-analytic) which are reported separately, a total of 19 original research papers fully met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The 19 original papers consisted of 5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 4 non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), 9 observational studies (OS) and 1 two-arm observational study. The included outcome measures were QoL, mood, and distress. Cohen’s effect size d was computed for each category. Estimating the effect on QoL, a total of n = 248 patients out of 6 studies was included and the overall effect size was 0.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17–0.40; p ≤ 0.00005). Calculating the effect on mood, a total of n = 411 patients out of ten studies were included, and the overall effect size was 0.42 (95% CI 0.26–0.58; p < 0.0001). Reduction in distress revealed an overall effect size of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45–0.72; p < 0.0001; n = 587 patients out of 15 studies). MBSR programmes can improve QoL and mood, and reduce distress in cancer patients. However, there is an urgent need for more high quality RCTs implementing adequate controls, longer follow-up periods, sufficient samples sizes, clear descriptions of patients’ psychological profiles, and the accompanying utilisation of qualitative measures.

Background: This study is part of a cross-sectional evaluation of complementary medicine providers in primary care in Switzerland. It compares patient satisfaction with anthroposophic medicine (AM) and conventional medicine (CON).