Exploring How Spiritual Care Enhances Quality of Life in Children with Leukemia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Leukemia is recognized as one of the most common malignancies in children, significantly influencing their physical, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions of health. Objectives: This systematic review aims to explore and synthesize existing evidence on the role of spiritual care in improving the quality of life among children diagnosed with leukemia, based on findings from 13 studies published between 2010 and 2025. Methods: From the initial search that yielded 2,854 records, 99 articles were selected for full-text screening after removing duplicates and reviewing the title/abstract, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria between January 2010 and March 2025. These studies examined the psychosocial experiences of parents whose children were receiving chemotherapy. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and SID using a set of predefined keywords. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and data extraction procedures. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist. Both qualitative and quantitative data were synthesized using a thematic analysis approach. Results: Spiritual care approaches, including counseling, meditation, prayer, and supportive spiritual presence, were found to enhance psychological resilience, social adaptation, and spiritual well-being in children with leukemia. Reported benefits included reduced anxiety, greater hope for the future, and an enhanced sense of meaning and purpose in life. Conclusions: The findings highlight spiritual care as a valuable complementary intervention for improving the overall quality of life in children living with leukemia. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to incorporate structured educational programs and tailored spiritual interventions into routine care to address the unique needs of this group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".