The role of chaplains within oncology interdisciplinary teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The role of chaplains/spiritual care professionals and the importance of addressing spiritual needs within interdisciplinary oncology teams are in need of systematic review and critical appraisal. This review focuses on four key areas: basic concepts of spirituality within the healthcare domain; the relevance of spirituality within cancer care; the role of spiritual care within interdisciplinary cancer teams; and the current status of spiritual care professionals in interdisciplinary cancer teams. RECENT FINDINGS: Addressing cancer patient's spiritual issues is recognized as a component of comprehensive cancer care. Spirituality has a positive effect on subjective and emotional aspects of cancer patient's health, including quality of life, wellbeing and distress. Failing to address cancer patients spiritual needs impacts patient wellbeing, satisfaction with care, perceived quality of care and is associated with higher healthcare costs. Although a variety of disciplines address spiritual issues, spiritual care professionals are recognized by patients, clinicians, researchers and within best practice guidelines of national health councils as specialists within this domain. SUMMARY: Spiritual care professionals are increasingly recognized as integral members of interdisciplinary oncology teams. However, the full integration of spiritual care professionals within the standard practice of oncology interdisciplinary teams is lacking, as spiritual care services continue to be treated as ancillary services within cancer care organizations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".