What are the core elements of oncology spiritual care programs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tending to the spiritual needs of patients has begun to be formally recognized by professional spiritual care providers, health care councils, and health delivery systems over the last 30 years. Recognition of these programs has coincided with evidence-based research on the effect of spirituality on health. Palliative care has served as a forerunner to an integrated professional spiritual care approach, recognizing the importance of addressing the spiritual needs of the dying from its inauguration within Western medicine almost 50 years ago. Oncology programs have also begun to recognize the importance of spirituality to patients along the cancer continuum, especially those who are approaching the end of life. Although standards and best practice guidelines have been established and incorporated into practice, little is known about the actual factors affecting the practice of spiritual care programs or professional chaplains working within an oncology setting. METHODS: Participant observation and interactive interviews occurred at five cancer programs after we conducted a literature search. RESULTS: This study identified underlying organizational challenges, cultural and professional issues, academic program development challenges, administrative duties, and therapeutic interventions that determined the success of oncology spiritual care programs in practice. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Although spiritual care services have developed as a profession and become recognized as a service within oncology and palliative care, organizational and operational issues were underrecognized yet significant factors in the success of oncology spiritual care programs. Spiritual care programs that were centrally located within the cancer care center, reported and provided guidance to senior leaders, reflected a multifaith approach, and had an academic role were better resourced, utilized more frequently, and seen to be integral members of an interdisciplinary care team than those services who did not reflect these characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".