Asking patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs: Cross-sectional study of family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine family physicians' practices in and opinions on asking patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs, as well as physicians' comfort levels in asking. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 155 family physicians with office practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of asking patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs and physicians' comfort levels in asking. Separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for each of these outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 139 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 89.7 %. Of the respondents, 51.8 % stated that they asked patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs sometimes. Physician opinion that it was important to ask patients about religious and spiritual beliefs (P = .001) and physician comfort level with asking (P < .001) were significantly associated with physicians' frequency of asking patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs. Comfort level with asking patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs was significantly associated with the opinions that it was important to ask (P = .004) and that it was their business to ask (P = .003), as well as with lack of training as the reason for not asking (P = .007). CONCLUSION: This study found that family physicians were more likely to ask patients about their religious and spiritual beliefs if they had higher comfort levels in asking or if they believed that asking was important. Further, this study found that family physicians' comfort level with asking was higher if they believed that it was important to ask and that it was their business to ask about religious and spiritual beliefs. Physician comfort levels with asking patients about religious and spiritual beliefs can be addressed through adequate training and education.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".