Interventions to Enhance the Spiritual Aspects of Dying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, medical and allied health publications have begun to address various topics on spirituality. Scholars have posited numerous definitions of spirituality and wrestled with the notion of spiritual pain and suffering. Researchers have examined the relationship between spirituality and health and explored, among other topics, patients' perceptions of their spiritual needs, particularly at the end of life. This paper summarizes salient evidence pertaining to spirituality, dying patients, their health care providers, and family or informal caregivers. We examine the challenging issue of how to define spirituality, and provide a brief overview of the state of evidence addressing interventions that may enhance or bolster spiritual aspects of dying. There are many pressing questions that need to be addressed within the context of spiritual issues and end-of-life care. Efforts to understand more fully the constructs of spiritual well-being, transcendence, hope, meaning, and dignity, and to correlate them with variables and outcomes such as quality of life, pain control, coping with loss, and acceptance are warranted. Researchers should also frame these issues from both faith-based and secular perspectives, differing professional viewpoints, and in diverse cultural settings. In addition, longitudinal studies will enable patients' changing experiences and needs to be assessed over time. Research addressing spiritual dimensions of personhood offers an opportunity to expand the horizons of contemporary palliative care, thereby decreasing suffering and enhancing the quality of time remaining to those who are nearing death.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".