The relevance of spirituality, religion and personal beliefs to health‐related quality of life: Themes from focus groups in Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generic health-related quality of life (QoL) instruments have not routinely assessed spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs (SRPB) in their measurement. This research addresses the perceived importance of 18 facets (dimensions) of SRPB, for example, inner peace, to QoL that are not specific to a religion, but address the experience of having this belief, in relation to health. METHOD: Adult focus groups were structured according to beliefs from UK surveys. Quotas targeted gender and health status. Nine focus groups (N = 55, age 51, 47% male) contained sick and well people who were religious, Christians, Buddhists, Quakers (50.1%), agnostic (27.4%), or atheist (21.8%) participants. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative analysis showed considerable variability in the importance attributed to some concepts, although spiritual strength, meaning in life and inner peace were relevant to all groups. Spiritual strength (4.42), the meaning of life (4.09), wholeness/integration (4.06), and inner peace (4.02) were most important. Divine love, freedom to practice beliefs, and attachment/detachment were less relevant, conceptually confusing or had religious bias; atheists rated them as unimportant and as less important (p < .04) than agnostics or religious people. CONCLUSIONS: SRPB is relevant to health-related QoL and consensually important facets should be included in generic health care assessments. Their inclusion permits a more holistic assessment and improves the case for a biopsychosociospiritual model of health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".