Professors’ Attitudes Toward Considering Spirituality and Spiritual Counseling and Training During Medical Education Among Medical Students: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Spirituality is considered as one of the dimensions of health, along with physical, psychological and social health which includes an element of excellence and transcendence. However, it is unclear whether contemporary medical professors in Iran still considering this concept in their training program. This study assesses the professors' attitude toward considering spirituality and spiritual counseling and training during medical education among medical students.Materials and methods: This is a qualitative study with conventional content analysis method. 43 participants, who were main stakeholders in medical education were selected by convenience sampling. Data were collected using structured interviews from September to October 2017, which continued until data saturation.Ethical consideration: the principles of ethics and integrity in the research, citation and literature analysis were taken into consideration.Finding: Three main themes and their categories were extracted from analysis of data. The themes are (1) helping to solve the students' spiritual problems and challenges (2), Psycho-spiritual characteristics of medical student (3), training spiritual concepts.Conclusion: A majority of professors acknowledged the use of spirituality concepts in medical education. It seems that implementation of such programs requires attention to facilitating factors and challenges proposed by those involved.
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 | 0.035 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".