Do Spirituality and Faith Make a Difference? Report from the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study Group

OBJECTIVE: In the last decade, some attention has been given to spirituality and faith and their role in cancer patients' coping. Few data are available about spirituality among cancer patients in Southern European countries, which have a big tradition of spirituality, namely, the Catholic religion. As part of a more general investigation (Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study--SEPOS), the aim of this study was to examine the effect of spirituality in molding psychosocial implications in Southern European cancer patients. METHOD: A convenience sample of 323 outpatients with a diagnosis of cancer between 6 to 18 months, a good performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status > 80), and no cognitive deficits or central nervous system (CNS) involvement by disease were approached in university and affiliated cancer centers in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland (Italian speaking area). Each patient was evaluated for spirituality (Visual Analog Scale 0-10), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--HADS), coping strategies (Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer--Mini-MAC) and concerns about illness (Cancer Worries Inventory--CWI). RESULTS. The majority of patients (79.3%) referred to being supported by their spirituality/faith throughout their illness. Significant differences were found between the spirituality and non-spirituality groups (p ≤ 0.01) in terms of education, coping styles, and psychological morbidity. Spirituality was significantly correlated with fighting spirit (r = -0.27), fatalism (r = 0.50), and avoidance (r = 0.23) coping styles and negatively correlated with education (r = -0.25), depression (r = -0.22) and HAD total (r = -0.17). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Spirituality is frequent among Southern European cancer patients with lower education and seems to play some protective role towards psychological morbidity, specifically depression. Further studies should examine this trend in Southern European cancer patients.

A Prospective Assessment of Renal Transplantation Versus Haemodialysis: Which Therapeutic Modality Is Good Value for Society?

Background: Economic evaluations help health authorities facing budget constraints. This study compares the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and costs in patient subgroups on haemodialysis (HD) and renal transplantation (KT). Methods: In a prospective study with follow-up of 1-3 years, we performed a costutility analysis of KT vs. HD, adopting a lifetime horizon. A societal perspective was taken. Costs for organ procurement, KT eligibility, transplant surgery and follow-up of living donors were included. Key clinical events were recorded. HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol instrument. Results: The HRQOL remained stable on HD patients. After KT, mean utility score improved at 3 months while mean EQ-VAS scores showed a sustained improvement. Mean annual cost for HD was 32,567.57€. Mean annual costs for KT in the year-1 and in subsequent years were, 60,210.09€ and 12,956.77€ respectively. Cost for initial hospitalization averaged 18,740.74€. HLA-mismatches increased costs by 75% for initial hospitalization (p < 0.001) and 41% in the year-1 (p < 0.05), and duplicate the risk of readmission in the year-1 (p < 0.05). The incremental costutility ratio was 5,534.46€/QALY, increasing 35% when costs for organ procurement were added. KT costs were 41,541.63€ more but provided additional 7.51 QALY. Conclusions: The KT is cost-effective compared with HD. Public funding should reflect the value created by the intervention and adapt to the organ demand.