A Qualitative Analysis of a Healthcare Professional's Understanding and Approach to Management of Spiritual Distress in an Acute Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perception of their role in provision of spiritual care, in addition to attempting to identify a simple question(s) to help identify spiritual distress. BACKGROUND: Spirituality is well recognized as important to whole-person care, particularly in those with terminal illnesses. Understanding the role of front-line providers in the identification and management of spiritual distress, however, remains challenging. METHODS: Twenty-one HCPs (eight physicians, seven nurses, six social workers) underwent qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring an understanding of spirituality/spiritual distress. HCPs were drawn from inpatient and outpatient settings in a tertiary care facility, and all had experience with patients with terminal illnesses. Interviews were subsequently coded and analyzed for dominant themes. RESULTS: Essentially all participants spoke of the high importance of spirituality and spiritual care, particularly for those facing end of life. However, the majority of HCPs had difficulty in formulating definitions/descriptions of spiritual care and spiritual distress, in marked contradistinction to the importance they ascribed to this aspect of holistic care. Almost universally provision of spiritual care was seen as critical, yet in the domain of chaplaincy/dedicated spiritual care providers. Reasons frequently cited for HCP's reluctance to provide such care themselves included time available, lack of training and expertise, and the sense that others could do a better job. DISCUSSION: Despite spirituality being highlighted as important to care, few HCPs felt able to provide this, raising questions around how such care can be encouraged and developed in busy acute care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".