Background: Observational studies indicate that religious values of physicians influence clinical practice. The aim of this study was to test prior hypotheses of prevalence of this influence using a meta-analysis design. Methods: Based on a systematic literature search we performed individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on data based on 2 preselected questionnaires. Ten samples from 7 countries remained after exclusion (n = 3342). IPDMA was performed using a random-effects model with 2 summary measures: the mean value of the scale “Religiosity of Health Professionals”; and a dichotomized value of the question “My religious beliefs influence my practice of medicine.” Also, a sensitivity analysis was performed using a mixed-models design controlling for confounders. Results: Mean score of religiosity (95% confidence interval [CI]) was significantly lower in the European subgroup (8.46 [6.96–9.96]) compared with the Asian samples India (10.46 [9.82–10.21]) and Indonesia (12.52 [12.19–12.84]), whereas Brazil (9.76 [9.54–9.99]) and USA (10.02 [9.82–10.21]) were placed in between. The proportion of the European physicians who agreed to the statement “My religious beliefs influence my practice of medicine” (95% CI) was 42% (26%–59%) compared with Brazil (36% [29%–43%]), USA (57% [54%–60%]), India (58% [52%–63%]), and Indonesia (91% [84%–95%]). Conclusions: Although large cross-cultural variations existed in the samples, 50% of physicians reported to be influenced by their religious beliefs. Religiosity and influence of religious beliefs were most pronounced in India, Indonesia, and a European faith-based hospital. Education regimes of current and future physicians should encompass this influence, and help physicians learn how their personal values influence their clinical practice.

Objectives Healthcare workers (HCWs) are the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic. They are more exposed to COVID-19 than other professions. Studies from other countries have shown that the mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of HCWs were affected during this pandemic. However, studies on mental health in Indonesia remain scarce and no study has evaluated the HRQoL among HCWs. Thus, this study was designed to explore the mental health status and HRQoL among HCWs in Indonesia. Design This was a cross-sectional study. Setting This was an open online survey in Indonesia conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. Participants This study involved HCWs who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 502 respondents who accessed the online questionnaire, 392 were included in the analysis. Outcomes Mental health status was measured using the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale and HRQoL was measured using the second version of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF12v2). Results The prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress among HCWs was 29.4%, 44.9% and 31.8%, respectively. Using the SF12v2 questionnaire, 354 (90.3%) HCWs were found to have impaired physical component and 156 (39.8%) HCWs have impaired mental component. Conclusion The prevalence of mental health problems among HCWs was high in Indonesia. HRQoL, particularly the physical component, was affected in most HCWs. Thus, policymakers should give more attention to the mental health and HRQoL of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modern healthcare research has only in recent years investigated the impact of health care workers’ religious and other moral values on medical practice, interaction with patients, and ethically complex decision-making. Thus far, no international data exist on the way such values vary across different countries. We therefore established the NERSH International Collaboration on Values in Medicine with datasets on physician religious characteristics and values based on the same survey instrument. The present article provides (a) an overview of the development of the original and optimized survey instruments, (b) an overview of the content of the NERSH data pool at this stage and (c) a brief review of insights gained from articles published with the questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed in 2002, after extensive pretesting in the United States and subsequently translated from English into other languages using forward-backward translations with Face Validations. In 2013, representatives of several national research groups came together and worked at optimizing the survey instrument for future use on the basis of the existing datasets. Research groups were identified through personal contacts with researchers requesting to use the instrument, as well as through two literature searches. Data were assembled in Stata and synchronized for their comparability using a matched intersection design based on the items in the original questionnaire. With a few optimizations and added modules appropriate for cultures more secular than that of the United States, the survey instrument holds promise as a tool for future comparative analyses. The pool at this stage consists of data from eleven studies conducted by research teams in nine different countries over six continents with responses from more than 6000 health professionals. Inspection of data between groups suggests large differences in religious and other moral values across nations and cultures, and that these values account for differences in health professional’s clinical practices.

Research to date has shown that health professionals often practice according to personal values, including values based on faith, and that these values impact medicine in multiple ways. While some influence of personal values are inevitable, awareness of values is important so as to sustain beneficial practice without conflicting with the values of the patient. Detecting when own personal values, whether based on a theistic or atheistic worldview, are at work, is a daily challenge in clinical practice. Simultaneously ethical guidelines of tone-setting medical associations like American Medical Association, the British General Medical Council and Australian Medical Association have been updated to encompass physicians’ right to practice medicine in accord with deeply held beliefs. Framed by this context, we discuss the concept of value-neutrality and value-based medical practice of physicians from both a cultural and ethical perspective, and reach the conclusion that the concept of a completely value-neutral physician, free from influence of personal values and filtering out value-laden information when talking to patients, is simply an unrealistic ideal in light of existing evidence. Still we have no reason to suspect that personal values, whether religious, spiritual, atheistic or agnostic, should hinder physicians from delivering professional and patient-centered care.