Spiritual Distress in Family Members of Critically Ill Patients: Perceptions and Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spiritual distress among family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been well characterized. This limits clinicians' understanding of how to best offer support. Objective: To explore how family members experience spiritual distress, and how it is recognized and support offered within the ICU context. Design: A qualitative study involving interviews and focus groups between May 2016 and April 2017. Setting/Subjects: Family members of ICU patients ( n = 18), spiritual health practitioners ( n = 10), and an interprofessional group of clinicians who work in the ICU ( n = 32). Measurements: Transcribed data were analyzed using interpretive description. Results: The experience of spiritual distress was variably described by all three groups through concepts, modulators, expressions and manifestations, and ways in which spiritual distress was addressed. Concepts included loss of meaning, purpose and connection, tension in beliefs, and interconnected distress. Modulators were related to the patient and family context, the ICU context, and the relational context. Expressions and manifestations were unique and individual, involving verbal expressions of thoughts and emotions, as well as behavioral manifestations of coping. Clinical strategies for addressing spiritual distress were described through general principles, specific strategies for discussing spiritual distress, and ways in which spiritual support can be offered. Conclusions: Our study provides a rich description of how spiritual distress is experienced by family members of ICU patients, and how spiritual health practitioners and clinicians recognize spiritual distress and offer support. These findings will help inform clinician education and initiatives to better support families of critically ill patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".