Health Care Chaplaincy: A Scoping Review of the Evidence 2009–2014
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing body of evidence investigating chaplaincy services. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the empirical literature specific to the role of chaplaincy within health care published since 2009. Electronic searches of four databases were conducted in August 2015. After screening, 48 studies were retained and reviewed. Four themes emerged: experiences and perceptions of the health care chaplain (n = 15), chaplain practice (n = 9), emerging areas of health care chaplaincy (n = 16), and outcome studies (n = 8). Studies were diverse in topics covered, methods, national contexts, and clinical settings. The majority were descriptive in nature. Evidence continues to demonstrate a relationship between chaplains and increased patient satisfaction. Nascent areas of research include chaplain's role with diverse populations, involvement in clinical ethics, and confidence with research and evidence-based practice. Few conclusions can be drawn from the limited evidence on the outcomes of chaplain interventions.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it