Religious and Spiritual Practices and Identification among Individuals Living with Cancer and Other Chronic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religion and spirituality in the context of health care are poorly understood, particularly for individuals with chronic illness. Using data from the 2003 Complementary and Alternative Medicine supplement to the 2001 California Health Interview Survey, we examined whether cancer survivors (n = 1,777) and individuals with other chronic illnesses (n = 4,784) were either more likely to identify themselves as religious and spiritual or more likely to use religious and spiritual practices for health purposes than individuals with no disease (n = 2,342). We observed that cancer survivors and individuals with chronic illnesses were more likely than those with no disease to use religious and spiritual prayer and healing practices. Individuals with chronic diseases were not inherently more likely to identify themselves as religious than were healthy individuals and were only slightly more likely to identify themselves as spiritual. These findings indicate that individuals with cancer and other chronic illnesses may be using religious and spiritual practices as a way to cope with their illness. Future research should continue to examine whether and how religious and spiritual practices are used as complementary or alternative medicine, and health care professionals should ask their patients about such use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".