‘Spiritual care is not the hospital's business’: a qualitative study on the perspectives of patients about the integration of spirituality in healthcare settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the relationship between spirituality and health. They claim the need to develop spiritual care to answer patients' spiritual suffering and to promote spiritual well-being. However, the present study critically analyses the following idea: we ought to take care of the spiritual dimension of patients. Does this interest for spirituality not come from healthcare professionals' desire more than from the patients themselves? OBJECTIVE: To answer this question, we explored the perspectives of individuals with cancer regarding the integration of spirituality in the healthcare setting. DESIGN: Qualitative design using semistructured interviews to focus on subjective experience. SETTING: One of the major public hospitals of Paris, France. PARTICIPANTS: 20 participants (n=11 men and n=9 women) with advanced cancer (stage IV). Age ranges from 37 to 80 years with a mean age of 58.7 years. RESULTS: Findings demonstrated that participants do not expect help from the hospital to handle spiritual issues but they wish for their spiritual dimension to be simply recognised as a part of their identity and dignity. CONCLUSIONS: Findings invite us to view the question of spirituality not as a new dimension of care but as a new challenge for healthcare institutions to recognise that the persons they are working for are not just 'patients' but human beings with a precious interior life.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".