Experience of Spiritual Coaching for Peer Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To protect against burnout syndrome and enhance the work capacity of peer educators who work with those who inject drugs under “A project to end AIDS, reduce new HIV infections and decrease tuberculosis in vulnerable populations of People Who Inject Drugs (PWID)”. This research aimed to study the process of the spiritual development of peer educators through exposure to spiritual coaching. The spiritual coaching in this study incorporated theoretical techniques of counseling psychology as well as an effective coaching approach.METHODS: This study was a qualitative research using the narrative approach. The data were collected from five in-depth interviews of peer educators who received spiritual coaching. The data were then analyzed by using thematic analysis.RESULTS: Three focus areas of the spiritual development of peer educators were found to be important/central: 1) knowledge and understanding, 2) enhancing experience and practice, and 3) belief in the spiritual to help with the field work.CONCLUSION: Base on the interaction between the counseling psychology theories and other related theories, the results of this study supported the benefits arising from improvements in the spiritual identity of the peer educators. This was reflected in the enhanced mental energy and work strategies. The latter finding can be applied to other peer educators who work with those who inject drugs in other 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".