Patient and healthcare perspectives on the importance and efficacy of addressing spiritual issues within an interdisciplinary bone marrow transplant clinic: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to use a qualitative approach to better understand the importance and efficacy of addressing spiritual issues within an interdisciplinary bone marrow transplant clinic from the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the bone marrow transplant clinic of a large urban outpatient cancer care centre in western Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups were conducted with patients (n=7) and healthcare providers (n=9) to explore the importance of addressing spiritual issues across the treatment trajectory and to identify factors associated with effectively addressing these needs. RESULTS: Data were analysed using the qualitative approach of latent content analysis. Addressing spiritual issues was understood by patients and healthcare providers, as a core, yet under addressed, component of comprehensive care. Both sets of participants felt that addressing basic spiritual issues was the responsibility of all members of the interdisciplinary team, while recognising the need for specialised and embedded support from a spiritual care professional. While healthcare providers felt that the impact of the illness and treatment had a negative effect on patients' spiritual well-being, patients felt the opposite. Skills, challenges, key time points and clinical indicators associated with addressing spiritual issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a number of conceptual and clinical challenges associated with addressing spiritual issues patients and their healthcare providers emphasised the importance of an integrated approach whereby basic spiritual issues are addressed by members of the interdisciplinary team and by an embedded spiritual care professional, who in addition also provides specialised support. The identification of clinical issues associated with addressing spiritual needs provides healthcare providers with clinical guidance on how to better integrate this aspect of care into their clinical practice, while also identifying acute incidences when a more targeted and specialised approach may be of benefit.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".