Mental health and hospital chaplaincy: strategies of self-protection (case study: toronto, Canada).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This is a study about emotion management among a category of healthcare professional - hospital chaplains - who have hardly been the subject of sociological research about emotions. The aim of the study was to understand how chaplains manage their work-related emotions in order to protect their mental health, whilst also providing spiritual care. METHODS: Using in-depth, semi structured interviews, the author spoke with 21 chaplains from five faith traditions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and modern paganism) in different Toronto (Canada) Hospitals to see how they manage their emotion, and what resources they rely on in order to protect their mental health. Data analysis was perfumed according to Sandelowski's method of qualitative description. RESULTS: The average age and work experience of the subjects interviewed in this study are 52 and 9.6 respectively. 11 chaplains worked part-time and 10 chaplains worked full-time. 18 respondents were women and the sample incudes 3 male chaplains only. The findings are discussed, among others, according to the following themes: work-life balance, self-reflexivity, methods of self-care, and chaplains' emotional make-up. CONCLUSION: Emotion management per se is not a problem. However, if chaplains fail to maintain a proper work-life balance, job pressure can be harmful. As a strategy, many chaplains work part-time. As a supportive means, an overwhelming number of chaplains regularly benefit from psychotherapy and/or spiritual guidance. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".