MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 253: The Importance of Spiritual Authorities in Critical Care Field: An International Survey Analysis

2018· article· en· W2971402526 on OpenAlexaff
Abbas Alshami, Romero Carlos, America Avila, Sharon Einav, Salim Surani, Joseph Varón

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMonsanto (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritual careHealth carePsychologyNursingIntensive care unitAffect (linguistics)Unit (ring theory)MedicineSpiritualityPolitical scienceAlternative medicineLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Belief is a major aspect of every human being, especially in critical situations. We aimed to investigate if physicians think that religion should be implemented in the communication and/or management of the critical patient. We assessed their opinion about the need to have spiritual figures among the healthcare team in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods: An anonymous 30-question survey was conducted over a period of 7 months among health care providers in 174 different institutions around 40 different countries. The Questionnaire addressed religion and how it may affect the management and/or interaction with patients. Specifically, we inquired if the presence of a religious figure (e.g. Rabbi, Priest/Pastor, Imam, etc.) would enhance the communication and/or management of the patients. Results: Of the 10,106 surveys that were submitted, 30.6% (n=3092) were physicians, 22.4% (n=2262) were nurses, and the rest were medical students and other health care providers. The opinions on the impact on managing patients and communicating with them and their families in the presence of a spiritual authority, such as a Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Imam or any other religious figure, as part of the ICU team, revealed that 47.9% (n=1480) of physicians thought it could be beneficial, 14% (n=433) said that it could be harmful, and 36.6% (n=1131) affirmed no impact. Regarding nurses, 51.4% (n=1163) indicated that it is beneficial, 10.1% (n=228) indicated that it is harmful, and 35.6% (n=806) think there is no impact. Of the physicians, 20.3% (n=628) of practicing members of a religion, 16.7% (n=519) of those who are believers but not practicing, 7.8% (n=242) of those spiritual but not religious, 2.1% (n=65) of those who do not believe in god or gods, consider that religious figures incorporated in the ICU team can improve patient outcome. While 26.0% (n=557) of nurses who are practicing members, 20.3% (n=435) of those who are believers but not practicing, and only 1% (n=116) of the other two categories (the spiritual but not religious and the non-believers) share the same opinion, p <0.001. Conclusions: One in every two physicians/nurses in this study considered spiritual authorities, as part of the ICU team, beneficial in managing the patients and communicating with them and their families. We also found a correlation between the religious practice of the physicians/nurses and their opinion about its impact on the care of the patients. Physicians who are committed to a religious practice, tend to state that this could be beneficial; while nurses who are spiritual but not religious indicated no impact on the management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.277
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207