Influence of religiosity and spiritual coping on health‐related quality of life in Saudi haemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) are frequently troubled by psychiatric disorders and coping problems, which can pose a serious threat to their physical and mental well-being. Using religious and spiritual interventions as a means of coping with physical and mental challenges is widely recognized. Although this topic has been well studied, in the Middle East regions, where Islam is the dominant religion, studies are limited. Thus, this study was performed to explore the influence of religiosity and spiritual coping (SC) on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of Saudi patients receiving HD. METHODS: A total of 168 HD patients from three hospitals in Saudi Arabia formed a convenient sample for this descriptive, cross-sectional hospital-based study. Data collection was done via questionnaire-guided interviews using the Muslim Religious Index as well as the Arabic Versions of the Spiritual Coping Strategies scale and Quality of Life Index Dialysis. Regression analysis enabled identification of the factors influencing HRQoL. FINDINGS: Older patients were found to reveal higher levels of religiosity, whereas the younger ones expressed a lesser degree of religious and nonreligious coping. Unemployed patients reported greater involvement in religious practices (RP) and more frequently used religious coping than those employed. The latter showed lower intrinsic religiosity and nonreligious coping usage than the unemployed. The respondents reported the greatest satisfaction scores on their psychological/spiritual dimension and the least scores on the social and economic dimension. Therefore, the factors that could influence the HRQoL of the respondents were identified as involvement in RP, intrinsic religious beliefs, religious coping usage and age. DISCUSSION: This study revealed significant findings regarding the importance of religiosity and SC on the HRQoL of the Saudi HD patients. Therefore, it has been highly recommended to integrate religiosity into the health-care process for such patients to facilitate the achievement of overall optimum health levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".