Spiritual Care in Holistic Nursing Education: A Spirituality and Health Elective Rooted in T.R.U.S.T. and Contemplative Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research to date demonstrates that spiritual care as an integral part of holistic nursing can be hampered if nurses experience insufficient preparation or organizational cultures that fail to prioritize spiritual well-being. In response, the author has developed a three-credit spirituality and health elective in an undergraduate nursing program to help participants address spiritual needs and mobilize spiritual strengths within themselves, patients, and workplaces. Using the T.R.U.S.T. Model for Inclusive Spiritual Care as its framework, the six-unit course draws on contemplative education practices in hopes of preparing a critical mass of nurses with the ability and confidence to foster safe, relevant spiritual care and promote a holistic, patient-centered health care culture. Course participants regularly demonstrate and report deeper self-awareness, skills development, and confidence in relation to spiritual care; the course also has been positively evaluated and fully subscribed over its seven offerings to date, validating its effectiveness in relation to short-term outcomes. Research is needed to evaluate its long-term effectiveness in helping alumni integrate spiritual care into their holistic practice and workplace culture.
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".