ReviewDigital health
Digital-facilitated spiritual care: A scoping review mapping interventions, technologies, and outcomes in clinical populations.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This scoping review aimed to systematically map the available literature on digital-facilitated spiritual care in clinical populations. Specific objectives were to: (1) identify target patient groups and geographical distribution of research; (2) describe intervention characteristics, delivery methods, and digital technologies used; and (3) summarize the assessment tools and reported outcomes described in the included studies. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus) and two grey literature sources (OpenGrey, ProQuest) from inception to June 2025. Studies were included if they involved digital delivery of spiritual care targeting patients with any clinical diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through consensus. Results: From 7,091 identified records, 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority (71.8%) were published after 2017, indicating rapid growth in the field. Geographically, the United States and China contributed nearly two-thirds of the studies. Cancer patients constituted the most frequently studied population. The included interventions were delivered through diverse digital modalities, including communication platforms, telephone-based approaches, video conferencing technologies, and specialized digital tools. FACIT-Sp was the most commonly used outcome measure. Several studies also integrated multiple digital technologies within a single intervention program. Conclusions: Digital health technologies offer a promising approach to supporting spiritual care as part of holistic healthcare. This scoping review mapped the existing literature on digitally facilitated spiritual care in clinical populations, presenting the main characteristics and current trends of the field. Future research should expand to more diverse populations and cultural settings, thereby supporting the further development and broader application of digitally facilitated spiritual care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.