To describe or prescribe: assumptions underlying a prescriptive nursing process approach to spiritual care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing attention is being paid to spirituality in nursing practice. Much of the literature on spiritual care uses the nursing process to describe this aspect of care. However, the use of the nursing process in the area of spirituality may be problematic, depending upon the understandings of the nature and intent of this process. Is it primarily a descriptive process meant to make visible the nursing actions to provide spiritual support, or is it a prescriptive process meant to guide nursing actions for intervening in the spirituality of patients? A prescriptive nursing process approach implies influencing, and in some cases reframing, the spirituality of patients and thereby extends beyond general notions of spiritual support. In this paper we discuss four problematic assumptions that form the basis for a prescriptive approach to spiritual care. We conclude that this approach extends the nursing role beyond appropriate professional boundaries, making it ethically problematic.
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 | 0.063 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".