Conceptualising spirituality and religion for healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To discuss some of the challenges of conceptualising spirituality and religion for healthcare practice. BACKGROUND: With the growing interest in spirituality in healthcare, has come the inevitable task of trying to conceptualise spirituality, a daunting task given the amorphous nature of spirituality, the changing understandings of spirituality among individuals and the diverse globalised society within which this task is taking place. Spirituality's relationship to religion is a particularly challenging point of debate. DESIGN: Critical review. CONCLUSIONS: Three social and historical conditions - located in the context of Western thought - have contributed to current conceptualisations of spirituality and religion: the diminishment of the social authority of religion as a result of the Enlightenment focus on reason, the rise of a postmodern spirituality emphasising spiritual experience and current tensions over the ideological and political roles of religion in society. The trend to minimise the social influence of religion is a particular Western bias that seems to ignore the global megatrend of the resurgence of religion. Current conceptualisations are critiqued on the following grounds: that they tend to be ungrounded from a rich history of theological and philosophical thought, that a particular form of elitist spirituality is emerging and that the individualistic emphasis in recent conceptualisations of spirituality diminishes the potential for societal critique and transformation while opening the door for economic and political self interest. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Constructing adequate conceptualisations of spirituality and religion for clinical practice entails grounding them in the wealth of centuries of philosophical and theological thinking, ensuring that they represent the diverse society that nursing serves and anchoring them within a moral view of practice.
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 | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".