Training Spiritual Care in Palliative Care in Teaching Hospitals in the Netherlands (SPIRIT-NL): A Multicentre Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the Netherlands, the spiritual dimension in healthcare became marginal in the second part of the twentieth century. In the Dutch healthcare system, palliative care is not a medical specialization and teaching hospitals do not have specialist palliative care units with specialized palliative care teams. Palliative care in these hospitals is delivered by healthcare professionals in general departments (mainly curative focused ones), and is based on multidisciplinary guidelines supported by palliative care consultation teams. A national multidisciplinary guideline on spiritual care is included, but standardized training based on this guideline still lacks. Implementation of this guideline is expected to have a positive effect on quality of care but is in an early state, the role of the specialists in this field—the healthcare chaplains—is developing. The objective of this article is to present the protocol of this study and stimulate discussion about methods of research on spirituality and spiritual care.Methods and Findings: This action research study is planned as an explorative multicentre trial. Healthcare chaplains of ten teaching hospitals will offer training onspiritual care in palliative care for healthcare professionals. What is the effect of this intervention on the competences of clinical teams? What is the effect on the perceived care and treatment as experienced by patients? The effects of the intervention on the competences of the clinicians will be measured once pre-study and twice post-study. Effects on patients’ physical symptoms and spiritual distress, and the perceived focus of caregivers on their spiritual needs or existential questions will also be measured pre- and post-study.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".