Facing Existential Realities: Exploring Barriers and Challenges to Spiritual Nursing Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although nurses of the past and present recognize the importance of spiritual care to health and healing, in practice and education, spiritual care dwells on the periphery of the profession. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the reasons behind this contradiction. Using the phenomenological approach, open-ended interviews were conducted with 29 individuals, including oncology nurses, patients and their families, chaplains, and hospital administrators. Their accounts reveal examples of how attitudes, beliefs, and practices of the larger organizational culture can shape the everyday lived experience of bedside nursing. Specifically, these influences tend to create a lived space that is uncaring, and a lived time that is "too tight." Moreover, lived body is experienced as an object for technical intervention, and lived other is experienced from a distance rather than "up close and personal." It was argued that, together, these existential experiences of lived time, space, body, and other create formidable barriers to spiritual nursing care.
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".