MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120095907 · doi:10.1177/1054773815579609

Development and Validation of the Spiritual Care Needs Inventory for Acute Care Hospital Patients in Taiwan

2015· article· en· W2120095907 on OpenAlexaff
Lifen Wu, Malcolm Koo, Yu‐Chen Liao, Yuh‐Min Chen, Dah‐Cherng Yeh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational University of Science and TechnologyNational University of Sciences and TechnologyNational Science CouncilWorld Health Organization
KeywordsSpiritual careAcute careMeaning (existential)Internal consistencyNursingVariance (accounting)MedicineConsistency (knowledge bases)Nursing carePsychologyFamily medicineHealth careSpiritualityPatient satisfactionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spiritual care is increasingly being recognized as an integral aspect of nursing practice. The aim of this study was to develop a new instrument, Spiritual Care Needs Inventory (SCNI), for measuring spiritual care needs in acute care hospital patients with different religious beliefs. The 21-item instrument was completed by 1,351 adult acute care patients recruited from a medical center in Taiwan. Principal components analysis of the SCNI revealed two components, (a) meaning and hope and (b) caring and respect, which together accounted for 66.2% of the total variance. The internal consistency measures for the two components were 0.96 and 0.91, respectively. Furthermore, younger age, female sex, Christian religion, and regularly attending religious activities had significantly higher mean total scores in both components. The SCNI was found to be a simple instrument with excellent internal consistency for measuring the spiritual care needs in acute care hospital patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nursing ResearchSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207