Inclusion of spiritual pain in patient reported outcome assessments as part of an integrative medicine physician consultation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
190 Background: Complementary and integrative health services are increasingly available to patients at cancer centers to help address physical and psychological needs. We review inclusion of spiritual pain (SP) as part of patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments in patients presenting for an outpatient integrative medicine consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: PRO data were collected as part of outpatient physician consultations at an integrative medicine clinic; we reviewed data between January 2013 and April 2017. Patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-FS, 12 symptoms, scale 0-10, 10 worst possible) immediately prior to the clinical encounter. ESAS distress subscales analyzed included psychological, physical, and global. Statistical analyses included summary statistics, two sample t-tests, correlations, and logistic regression. Results: We analyzed data from 4348 unique participants. Demographics included 65% women, average age 55.5, 78% Caucasian, 72% married or with significant other, majority Christian non-Catholic (49%) followed by non-specified (23%), and Catholic (20%). Overall, 41% of patients reported SP at baseline. Patients reporting a SP score of ≥ 1 (n = 1549) reported significantly higher levels of global, physical, and psychological distress than patients with SP scores of 0 (n = 2275) (all p’s < 0.001). Older patients and men were less likely to report SP. SP clustered with psychological symptoms of depression and anxiety (reliability coefficient 0.76). Conclusions: A significant number of cancer patients presenting for integrative medicine consultations reported having SP, with SP clustering with psychological versus physical symptoms. More research is needed to better understand how routine screening for SP contributes to assessments of overall psychological health.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".