Impact of Spirituality on Palliative Care Physicians: Personally and Professionally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern palliative care defines four key domains fundamental to a patients' holistic care: physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. Regardless of the symptom being addressed, all four domains of care may need to be addressed to reduce suffering and encourage healing. Yet, despite the spiritual domain consistently being asserted as an integral part of palliative care, more is written on how to provide the physical, emotional, and social aspects of care than on how to provide spiritual care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of palliative care physicians regarding the spiritual domain of care and to identify the role of this domain both personally and professionally. DESIGN: This study recruited a purposeful sample of palliative care physicians and utilized the qualitative method of phenomenology to elicit palliative care physician's perspectives and experiences regarding the importance of spirituality in providing palliative care to patients. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the study in relation to palliative care physicians' perspectives and experiences regarding the spiritual domain of care included the concept of spirituality and the difference between spirituality and religion. The overarching theme was the concept of how the participant's own spirituality impacted their practice and their practice impacted their spirituality. These were inextricably woven together. CONCLUSION: Addressing spirituality was fundamental to a palliative care physician providing compassionate and holistic care. The impact of a physician's personal spirituality on practice and practice on spirituality were inextricably woven together.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".