Clinicians’ Perception of Spirituality in Oncology Care: A Qualitative Synthesis

Author, Country (Year)

Was there a clear statement of the aims of

the research?

Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?

Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to

the aims of the research?

Was the data collected in a way that addressed the

research issue?

Has the relationship between researcher and

participants been

adequately considered?

Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?

Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?

Is there a clear statement of findings?

How valuable is the research?

Points

Status

1. Siler et al. (2019) USA [16]

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

0

1

1

1

85%

Included

2. Dong et al. (2015) China [17]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

95%

Included

3. Siller et al. (2018) USA [18]?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

95%

Included

4. Zumstein-Shaha et al. (2020) USA [19]

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

90%

included

5. Zheng et al. (2015) China [20]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

95%

included

6. Kesbakhi & Rohani (2021) Australia [21]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

95%

included

7. Kienle et al. (2018) Germany [22]

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

1

1

1

95%

included

8. Best et al. (2016) Australia [23]

1

1

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

1

1

1

90%

included

9. Hamooleh et al. (2013) Iran [24]

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

1

1

1

95%

included

10. Kim et al. (2017) USA [25]

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

1

0.5

85%

included

11. Bakitas et al. (2012) United Kingdom [26]

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

1

1

95%

included