Clinicians’ attitudes to spirituality in old age psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey is to investigate professional attitudes to the presence and value of spiritual care from Old Age Psychiatrists. METHOD: All registered members of the Faculty of the Psychiatry of Old Age in the United Kingdom were asked to complete a 21-question semi-structured questionnaire. The first mail shot took place in 2002 and the second mail shot to non-respondents in 2003. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on the answers received. RESULTS: The response rate was 46%. The majority of respondents (92%) recognize the importance of spiritual dimensions of care for older people with mental health needs and about a quarter of respondents appear to consider referring patients to the chaplaincy service. In contrast, integration of spiritual advisors within the assessment and management of individual cases is rare. CONCLUSIONS: Opinions vary as to whether provision of spiritual care should become widely available to older people with mental health needs who are admitted to hospital. Old age psychiatrists recognize that awareness of spiritual dimensions may be important for their patients. They seem less clear about the role of spiritual advisors and how NHS multidisciplinary clinical teams and spiritual and pastoral care services can be best integrated. Much work needs to be done on developing effective training and operational policies in this area.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".