Impact of Spiritual Care Education on Nurses’ Spiritual Well Being and Clinical Competence

Determining the effect of spiritual care training on nurses’ spiritual well‑being and clinical competence

This randomized clinical trial was conducted among 120 nurses. Participants were allocated to the intervention and control groups using Random Allocation Software through block randomization with a block size of four.

A total of 120 eligible nurses from the hospital’s clinical wards were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups using block randomization (block size of four). The control group received no intervention, while the intervention group attended a four‑session spiritual care training workshop. Data were collected with the Spiritual Well‑Being Scale and the Nurse Clinical Competence Scale at three points: pre‑intervention, immediately post‑intervention, and two months later. The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to group allocation.

Inclusion criteria: willingness to participate in the study; having at least a bachelor’s degree in nursing; at least one year of clinical work experience; and active employment in clinical wards during the study period. Exclusion criteria: History of diagnosed psychiatric disorders or taking psychiatric medications (based on self-report); Experiencing severe grief or a major emotional crisis in the past 6 months; Planning for long-term leave, maternity leave, or transfer to another center within the next 3 months; Employment in non-clinical departments (e.g., administrative, support, or purely educational units).

Intervention group: Participated in a spiritual care training workshop consisting of four educational sessions. Control group: Received no educational intervention during the study period, and the training materials were provided to them after completion of the study.

Spiritual well‑being; Clinical competence

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (n = 60) or the control group (n = 60) using block randomization with a block size of four, generated by Random Allocation Software (version 2.0). The allocation sequence was concealed in opaque, sequentially numbered envelopes, which were opened by a research assistant at the time of each participant’s enrollment. To minimize contamination bias, participants in the control group were recruited first and completed both the pretest and posttest assessments before recruitment of the intervention group began. This approach helped prevent the exchange of information between groups. Furthermore, outcome data were collected by a separate research assistant who was blinded to group allocation, ensuring unbiased data collection.

Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and intervention providers was not feasible. However, to minimize selection and assessment bias, allocation concealment was implemented and both the outcome assessor and the data analyst were blinded to group assignment. In addition, to reduce the risk of contamination between groups, participants in the control group were recruited first and completed both the pre‑test and post‑test assessments. Recruitment of the intervention group began only after completion of the control group assessments to prevent potential information exchange between groups.

After the completion of the study, if necessary, the coded data will be published along with the article.