The wishes of outpatients with severe mental disorders to discuss spiritual and religious issues in their psychiatric care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In a previous multisite comparative study of spiritual and religious coping (S/R) among outpatients with schizophrenia; S/R were adaptive for 80% of patients; harmful for 13%; and marginal for 7%. This importance was underestimated by clinicians. We created an interfaith therapeutic group to address such topics. The aim of the study is to assess patients' wish to address S/R issues in their psychiatric care. METHOD: Psychiatrists asked consecutive outpatients about their wish; with who they shared S/R concerns; and their interest to enroll in the "Spiritual and Recovery Group". RESULTS: Among the 147 patients included less than half shared their spiritual concerns with other people. A quarter wished to address S/R issues in their care; 24/147 already shared those issues with a religious professional; half of them wished also to share them with their psychiatrist. Among the 21 patients who participated in an in-depth spiritual assessment 16 patients were directed to the S/R group and 5 patients were directed to groups addressing other therapeutic objectives. CONCLUSION: For one patient out of ten, S/R issues were of a clinical significance warranting integration into psychiatric treatment. This study shows that patients' views are in accordance with former research, putting forward psychiatrists' stance on this issue.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".