Addressing Spiritual and Religious Influences in Care Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of spiritual and religious factors on health and care delivery has been identified in case management field research. The purpose of this article is to examine how case managers, taking a holistic, patient-centered approach, are required under professional and ethical standards to address the spiritual and religious influences that may impact the individual's health, care choices, and care delivery. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: Case managers across health or human services must be able to identify and address the spiritual and/or religious factors that may influence a care plan and care delivery. This includes case managers in acute care, primary care, workers' compensation, hospice, mental health counseling, and other practice settings. Regardless of their professional discipline, specialization, or practice setting, case managers must ensure that the voice of the individual is heard and that each person receives the support that is most relevant and meaningful. IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: The impact of spiritual and religious factors on health and care delivery has been identified in case management field research, known as role and function studies, which are conducted every 5 years, and which set the blueprint for the Certified Case Manager (CCM) certification examination. The most recent role and function study affirmed the knowledge domain of multicultural, spiritual, and religious factors that may affect the health status of the individual receiving case management services. Essential activities of case management include identifying multicultural, spiritual, and religious factors that may affect the client's health status and incorporating the effects of the client's multicultural, spiritual, and religious factors in the development of the plan of care and service delivery (). To demonstrate competency in the required knowledge domain and essential activities, case managers must be able to identify and address the spiritual and/or religious factors that may influence a care plan and care delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".