Spirituality in bedlam: Exploring professional conversations on acute psychiatric units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The inclusion of spiritual conversations in occupational therapy is congruent with the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement, which identifies spirituality as the core of every human being. Research indicates that spirituality can be a resource for mental health recovery. PURPOSE: This manuscript reports on Part 2 of a research study that explored the experience of spiritual conversations for patients (Part I) and mental health professionals (Part 2) on acute psychiatric units. METHOD: Eight acute-based mental health professionals (MHPs)/participants, representing a variety of disciplines, participated in a focus group or individual interview. Community-based participatory research, appreciative inquiry, and interpretive description provided methodological and analytic guidance. FINDINGS: MHP/participants described challenges in setting boundaries related to spirituality conversations and discerning spiritual experience from psychosis. MHPs/participants emphasized the importance in providing an empathetic presence while also engaging in spiritual networking. IMPLICATIONS: Therapists can incorporate spiritual conversations with patients in acute psychiatric settings by taking specific actions to enhance their openness and engaging in spiritual networking.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".