An exploration of the extent of inclusion of spirituality and spiritual care concepts in core nursing textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Holistic care that encompasses a spiritual dimension is an expectation in modern healthcare (Rothman, 2009). Increasing attention is being paid to the role of nurses in providing spiritual care to patients. However nurses lack specific skills and expertise in this area (Lundmark, 2006; Timmins, 2010; RCN, 2011), and the extent to which their undergraduate education prepares them for this role is unclear. There is often an absence of clear direction about what to teach undergraduate nursing students. The extent to which core textbooks direct student studies in this area is not known. There is some evidence that some of these fundamental core textbooks provide insufficient direction (Pesut, 2008), thus gaps in knowledge and care provision in this field could be exacerbated. AIM: The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which spiritual care concepts are addressed in core nursing textbooks. METHODS: Five hundred and forty three books were sampled from the Nursing and Midwifery Core Collection list (UK) (Tomlinsons, 2010) representing 94% of the total (n=580). A survey, the Spirituality Textbook Analysis Tool (STAT), was developed and used to collect data. FINDINGS: One hundred and thirty of the books included content related to spirituality and religion. However there was little consistency in the core nursing textbooks with regard to direction for providing spiritual care. Thirty eight percent of the books defined spiritual care and 36% provided an outline of the role of the nurse in providing this. While some books advocated the assessment of patients' spiritual needs (32%) few referred specifically to assessment tools. DISCUSSION: It is essential that nurses are adequately prepared to address the spiritual needs of patients. While there are numerous spiritual care texts that deal solely with this issue for nurses, there is an argument emerging that core nursing texts used by nursing students ought to encompass spiritual care elements. Lack of specific focus on this field, by these key textbooks might infer that this important element of holistic care is less important than other matters in nursing. True holistic care ought to permeate across textbooks and as such spirituality and spiritual care ought not to be sequestered to specialised texts. Core nursing texts need to be strengthened through consistency of application and inclusion of spirituality and spiritual care where relevant.
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 | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".