Validating a tool to measure spiritual beliefs, needs and resources in serious illness: The I-SPIRIT.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill patients rely on spiritual and existential beliefs to support coping and approach crucial treatment and healthcare decisions. Yet, we lack gold standard, validated approaches to gathering information on those spiritual beliefs. Therefore, we developed I-SPIRIT, a spiritual needs and beliefs inventory for those with serious illness (IIR-10-050). METHODS: In prior work to develop measure content, we interviewed a total of 74 participants: 20 patients (veterans with Stage IV cancer, CHF, COPD, ESRD), 19 caregivers, 14 chaplains, 10 social workers, 12 nurses, and 5 physicians. Using directed content analyses, we identified over 50 attributes of spiritual experience comprising five domains: overall importance of spirituality; affiliations and practices; impact on decisions; spiritual needs; and spiritual resources. We then translated these attributes into individual items with Likert response scales. In the quantitative validation of I-SPIRIT, we administered the instrument and a battery of comparison measures to 249 seriously ill veterans. The comparison measures captured general spiritual well-being, religious coping, and emotional functioning. Convergent and discriminant validity was examined with the FACIT-sp (faith, meaning, and purpose), BMMRS (religious/spirituality), POMS and PHQ-8 (emotional function), and FACT-G (quality of life). We administered the I-SPIRIT a week later, for test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Psychometric analyses yielded a final I-SPIRIT Tool including 30 items. Results demonstrated reliability and validity and yielded a tool with three main components: Spiritual Beliefs (seven items); Spiritual Needs (nine items); and Spiritual Resources (14 items). The Spiritual Beliefs items include key practices and affiliations, and impact of beliefs on healthcare. Higher levels of Spiritual Needs were associated with higher anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The I-Spirit measures relevance of spirituality, spiritual needs and spiritual resources and demonstrates validity, reliability, and acceptability for patients with serious illness.

How Medication Adherence Affects Disease Management in Veterans with Glaucoma: Lessons Learned from a Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a secondary, real-world clinical assessment of a randomized controlled trial to determine how a glaucoma medication adherence intervention impacted the clinical outcomes of participants at 12 months post-randomization. Participants included veterans at a VA eye clinic with medically treated glaucoma who reported poor adherence and their companions, if applicable. METHODS: The treatment group received a glaucoma education session with drop administration instruction and virtual reminders from a "smart bottle" (AdhereTech) for their eye drops. The control group received a general eye health class and the smart bottle with the reminder function turned off. Medical chart extraction determined if participants in each group experienced visual field progression, additional glaucoma medications, or a recommendation for surgery or laser due to inadequate intraocular pressure control over the 12 months following randomization. The main outcome measure was disease progression, defined as visual field progression or escalation of glaucoma therapy, in the 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: Thirty-six versus 32% of the intervention (n = 100) versus control (n = 100) groups, respectively, experienced disease intensification. There was no difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of intensification (intervention vs. control group odds ratio: 1.20; 95% confidence interval: [0.67, 2.15]), including when age, race, and disease severity were accounted for in the logistic regression model. Those whose study dates included time during the COVID-19 pandemic were evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention that improved medication adherence for glaucoma for 6 months did not affect the clinical outcomes measured at 12 months post-randomization. Twelve months may not be long enough to see the clinical effect of this intervention or more than 6 months of intervention are needed.