Spirituality and Psychiatry in Canada: Psychiatric Practice Compared with Patient Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares psychiatrists' and psychiatric patients' practice, attitudes, and expectations regarding spirituality and religion. METHOD: We mailed surveys to all Canadian psychiatrists registered with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (n = 2890). The response rate was 42% (n = 1204). We recruited patients from a Canadian on-line survey (n = 67) and from a local mental health clinic (n = 90). RESULTS: Psychiatrists had lower levels of beliefs and practices than did patients and the general population. In both groups, 47% felt there was "often or always" a place to include spirituality in psychiatric assessment, although the perceived importance differed. Among patients, 53% felt it important to have this issue addressed, and 24% considered the psychiatrist's spiritual interest important in their choice of psychiatrist. Barriers to addressing the issue of spirituality and mental health related to psychiatrists' concern regarding its appropriateness and patients' perception that interest is lacking. Psychiatrists' own beliefs and practices were strong predictors of spiritual inquiry. CONCLUSIONS: Although psychiatrists report lower levels of spiritual and religious belief than do patients, they acknowledge that it is important to include this topic in patient care. Increased discussion and education may lower reported barriers to including spirituality and religion in routine psychiatric assessment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".