Existential and Religious Dimensions of Spirituality and Their Relationship with Health-Related Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spiritual aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have not been fully assessed. This study described the religious and existential dimensions of spirituality of patients with CKD, provided evidence to support construct validity of the ESRD Spiritual Beliefs Scale, and examined the relationship between constructs of spirituality and HRQoL. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a prospective, cohort study of 253 predominantly white (81.5%) prevalent patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD or receiving long-term dialysis. Participants completed the Kidney Dialysis Quality of Life Short Form, the ESRD Spiritual Beliefs Scale, the Spiritual Perspective Scale, and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. RESULTS: Three subscales of ESRD Spiritual Beliefs Scale were highly correlated with other measures of religiosity and weakly correlated with existential well-being. Mean of three subscales of ESRD Spiritual Beliefs Scale and overall Spiritual Perspective Scale scores were 8.8 to 9.9 and 3.3, respectively. Mean ± SD existential and religious scores of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale were 42.9 ± 8.8 and 38.8 ± 11.4, respectively. Negligible correlations existed between religious scores and HRQoL. Conversely, existential well-being was moderately associated with several domains of HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports construct validity of the ESRD Spiritual Beliefs Scale as a measure of religiosity. It did not seem to capture the existential dimension of spirituality. The existential domain of spirituality was more clinically relevant to patients in this study and had a greater impact on HRQoL compared with measures of religiosity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".