4.0 Article

Patterns of Religiosity, Death Anxiety, and Hope in a Population of Community-Dwelling Palliative Care Patients in New Zealand-What Gives Hope If Religion Can't?

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1049909119891148

关键词

religion; spirituality; death anxiety; hope; joy; dying; New Zealand; secular; non-religious; palliative care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the prevalence of religiosity, death anxiety, and hope in a sample of New Zealand community hospice patients in the last 6 months of life. It explores the factors triggering distress or hope and examines whether religiosity is protective against death anxiety for this population. Early studies showed religious faith helps relieve death anxiety, but later work suggests this may only be the case in societies which are generally religious. Very little research has been conducted on this topic in New Zealand, from which recent censuses indicate is an increasingly secular country. If religion is not an important source of hope for dying, it is important to explore what factors do help relieve existential anxiety and to consider their clinical relevance. This study confirmed that organized religion was not a major support factor. Yet several people who declared themselves nonreligious scored highly for intrinsic religiosity and were among the most hopeful participants. This could suggest that spirituality may be more relevant than organized religion in relieving existential distress. The main source of hope for most participants was joyful memories and meaningful relationships. Fear of being a burden and of causing family suffering were the most significant causes of distress. Systematic spiritual assessment for all patients, not just those with a declared religious faith, a biography service, and psychotherapy, may all have a role in managing death anxiety at the end of life. Further work with larger and more diverse populations would be needed to confirm these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据