Table 5 Correlations among the variables Social aspect Spiritual aspect Psychological aspect Physical aspect Social aspect Spiritual aspect Psychological aspect Physical aspect 1 0.61** 0.65** 0.29* 0.61** 1 0.85** 0.79** 0.65** 0.85** 1 0.82** 0.29* 0.79** 0.82** 1 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Psychological aspect Spiritual aspect Social aspect Physical aspect P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 D4 S2 F1 F3 F4 S1 0.52* 0.36* 0.72* F2 F5 F8 0.21*

Filej B et al. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(1):773 – 780 © 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 778 Group comparison between hospital and community nursing Model results were compared for different groups, i.e., for nurses from different settings (hospital versus community setting). For this purpose, the research model was examined for hospital and community nursing settings separately. Differences between hospital and community nursing in a model were tested using a t-test for unpaired samples. The level of significance was set at 0.05. The results are presented in Table 6. Results of the t-test in Table 6 revealed statistically significant differences between hospital and community settings regarding the impact of social aspect on psychological aspect (S ≥ P; p-value < 0.05), and regarding the impact of psychological aspect on physical aspect (P ≥ F; p-value < 0.05). Differences were not significant regarding the impacts of spiritual aspect on psychological aspect (D ≥ P; p-value > 0.05), and on physical aspect (D ≥ F; p-value > 0.05). Table 6 Model results for hospital and community nursing Latent variable Global Hospital Community Abs. diff. p-value Sig.05 S ≥ P 0.212 0.297 0.081 0.216 0.026 Yes D ≥ P 0.719 0.755 0.705 0.050 0.607 No D ≥ F 0.357 0.349 0.298 0.051 0.489 No P ≥ F 0.520 0.562 0.441 0.121 0.031 Yes S – social aspect; D – spiritual aspect; P – psychological aspect; F – physical aspect; Abs. diff. – Absolute difference between Hospital and Community value; Sig.05 – Significant at α=0.05 Discussion Our research confirmed that physical aspects are influenced by both psychological and spiritual aspects, whereas social aspects have only an indirect influence. Rose and Glass (2006) also observe that in end-of-life care nurses were often more focused on routine physical tasks than on psychological aspects. McIlfatrick, Hasson (2014) have established that, especially in palliative care, interventions are channeled into the easing of physical suffering, and that palliative patients express fewer social and psychological needs. On the other hand, based on a sample of eight semi-structured interviews, Bradley, Frizelle, Johnson (2011) have established that it depends on each individual which aspect of the treatment they give priority to – social or physical. However, clinical judgment remains a valuable part of the decision-making process, allowing the placing of focus on the changing needs of a patient and their caregivers. Loss of social role and physical restrictions often cause psychological distress, depression, anxiety and frustration, and overall poor quality of life (Disler, Jones, 2010). The goal of palliative care, as stated by Freeman, Price (2006), is, irrespective of the disease, management of the end-of-life situation, and increased comfort and quality of life.