An evidence-based program for enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration to promote spiritual care in an adolescent psychiatric residential facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirituality is an essential component of any healthcare assessment and plan, yet it is not clear how to best integrate spirituality in an interprofessional practice. Bronstein’s Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration served as a guide to address this problem and to design a quality improvement project for and provision of spiritual care to adolescents was facilitated in a local residential psychiatric facility. Professional staff members of the Interprofessional treatment teams (IPTT) were invited to participate in educational programming that was based on textbook reviews, interviews with a nursing curriculum designer and residential chaplain, and surveys of IPTT member baseline knowledge of the relationship between spirituality and mental health. Eighteen participants took both the pre-test and post-test survey. A two-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test was run on the scores of those who took both tests, revealing there was a significant difference between the scores ( p = .002), indicating an increase in general knowledge regarding matters of spirituality and its relationship to mental health. Finally, a process and structural evaluation of the discussion meetings revealed content of these meetings was generally helpful and positively contributed to the knowledge and skillsets of interprofessional treatment team members in recognizing spiritual distress and meeting spiritual needs. The role of pastoral care was affirmed and even celebrated by members of the interprofessional treatment team.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".