Incorporation of spiritual care as a component of healthcare and medical education: comparison of Sub-Saharan African and Northern European viewpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses cultural differences regarding views on the place for spirituality within healthcare training and delivery. A questionnaire was devised using a 5-point ordinal scale, with additional free text comments assessed by thematic analysis, to compare the views of Ugandan healthcare staff and students with those of (1) visiting international colleagues at the same hospital; (2) medical faculty and students in United Kingdom. Ugandan healthcare personnel were more favourably disposed towards addressing spiritual issues, their incorporation within compulsory healthcare training, and were more willing to contribute themselves to delivery than their European counterparts. Those from a nursing background also attached a greater importance to spiritual health and provision of spiritual care than their medical colleagues. Although those from a medical background recognised that a patient’s religiosity and spirituality can affect their response to their diagnosis and prognosis, they were more reticent to become directly involved in provision of such care, preferring to delegate this to others with greater expertise. Thus, differences in background, culture and healthcare organisation are important, and indicate that the wide range of views expressed in the current literature, the majority of which has originated in North America, are not necessarily transferable between locations; assessment of these issues locally may be the best way to plan such training and incorporation of spiritual care into clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".