Patient Perspectives about Spirituality and Spiritual Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to explore the perspectives regarding spirituality and spiritual care held by individuals with advanced disease. The aim was to gain a deeper understanding about their viewpoints surrounding spiritual care and the role of health-care professionals in providing such care. METHODS: Sixteen individuals with advanced disease and a prognosis of <12 months underwent an in-depth interview. Transcripts were subjected to a qualitative descriptive analysis to identify salient content and themes. RESULTS: Four overall themes were identified: Spirituality is personal, spiritual distress is about separation, spiritual care is about connecting, and conversations about spirituality must align with the patient's beliefs. Subthemes emphasized the individuality of spiritual expression, the potential for illness impacting spiritual beliefs, and the value of connections to one's spiritual community. Participants thought healthcare providers needed to be able to identify individuals who were experiencing a spiritual struggle, acknowledge the reality of that struggle, and connect the individual with the appropriate resource or person. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced disease are likely to express their spirituality in unique ways. Being able to talk about their spiritual beliefs and doubts during illness without judgment was seen as a benefit to them. Healthcare providers ought to be able to identify those patients who require assistance in connecting to appropriate spiritual care resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".