[Development and validation of a questionnaire for patient competence in coping with cancer (PCQ)]

Psycho-Oncological Self-Help Groups in Bavaria: The Current Situation and Suggestions for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Self-help groups (SHGs) are an important cornerstone of the German health care system. Especially collaborations of SHGs with cancer centers enable active patient involvement in cancer care. We investigated the current situation and unmet needs of Bavarian SHGs in order to point out possible options of action.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study with Bavarian psycho-oncological SHGs. Via e-mail, an online survey was sent to 150 SHGs registered at the BZKF (Bavarian Cancer Research Center). We assessed activities and needs of the SHGs as well as the nature of collaborations with cancer centers. We focused on adaptations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the inclusion of migrants.

RESULTS

46 (33.66%) SHGs participated, while 39 (84.78%) completed the questionnaire. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 50% of the SHGs reported less meetings. 22.7% changed to online meetings or other formats (43.2%). 20.9% of the SHGs had regular meetings with the cancer center, and 23.1% with the psycho-oncology. 51.2% evaluated the psycho-oncological services as neutral to dissatisfying due to lack of information, availability, and long waiting times. The SHGs indicated needs concerning interventions (coping strategies, digital applications, etc.), information, and better communication. Efforts for overcoming inequalities seemed rare: only 13.6% of the SHGs and 16.2% of the cancer centers had services for migrants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study gave an overview of current activities and needs of Bavarian SHGs. The implementation of patient guides, comprehensive information material, and low-threshold psycho-oncological services should be objectives in future care to increase patient satisfaction. The needs for services for migrants should be investigated in more detail.

Sense of coherence and religion/spirituality: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a methodical classification of instruments measuring religion/spirituality

The coherence hypothesis assumes that sense of coherence (SOC) explains the positive link between religion/spirituality (R/S) and mental health. The aim of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence for the association between SOC (sensu Antonovsky) and different aspects of R/S and thus to contribute to the verification of the coherence hypothesis. Eighty-nine English- and German-language primarily cross-sectional studies with 67,913 participants met the inclusion criteria. The R/S scales of all included studies were subjected to item-by-item qualitative content analysis in order to determine whether scales do actually measure religion or spirituality and which R/S aspects dominated the instrument. Based on this classification, overall and subgroup meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model. The adjusted effect size between SOC and all positive R/S measures was r+ = .120, 95% CI [.092, .149]. Particularly significant (r+ < -.180 or > .180) were correlations with negative R/S scales (r+ = -.405, 95% CI [-.476, -.333]), R/S instruments measuring primarily positive emotions (r+ = .212, 95% CI [.170, .253]) or meaning-making (r+ = .196, 95% CI [.126, .265]). Both sample characteristics (age, culture, gender, health status, religious affiliation) and study characteristics (e.g., publication year) had a moderating effect on the R/S-SOC connection. The correlation was particularly high in studies from Southern Asia (r+ = .226, 95% CI [.156, .297]), the African Islamic cultural value zone (r+ = .196, 95% CI [.106, .285]), and in a small subgroup of Iranian studies (r+ = .194, 95% CI [.117, .271]). The results confirm that R/S and SOC are clearly associated and suggest that there are different religious/spiritual pathways to a strong SOC. The strength of the associations presumably depends not only on individual differences, but also on cultural embeddedness and social plausibility of R/S. Trial registration. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240380. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID = CRD42021240380.