Concordance between nurses' perception of their ability to provide spiritual care and the identified spiritual needs of hospitalized patients: A cross‐sectional observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spiritual care is essential to the well-being of patients, and nurses provide spiritual care as a fundamental part of nursing practice. In this study, we investigated the spiritual care needs of hospitalized patients to determine whether the perceived knowledge of nurses corresponded with these spiritual care needs. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 1351 hospitalized patients and 200 registered nurses recruited from a medical center in central Taiwan. A questionnaire, including the 21-item Spiritual Care Needs Inventory (patient and nurse version) and basic demographic information, was distributed to eligible participants. The top three items of the spiritual care needs expressed by the hospitalized patients were respect for privacy and dignity, showing concern, and guidance in gaining a sense of hope in life; the percentages of nurses not knowing how to provide these spiritual care needs were 0%, 1%, and 15%, respectively. The spiritual care needs of patients showed a significant relationship with the knowledge of nurses, suggesting that the perceived knowledge of the nurses generally corresponded with the spiritual care items that the patients required most.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".