Becoming a Channel of God: How Faith Community Nurses Develop Their Spiritual Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored the underlying process faith community nurses (FCNs) experience in developing their spiritual nursing practice. DESIGN: A qualitative, exploratory design was used. METHOD: Data from interviews with six FCNs were generated and analyzed using Glaserian grounded theory. FINDINGS: The basic social psychological process, cultivating the soul to become a channel of God, explains the steps these nurses take to achieve stages of presence. Going through these stages of presence, FCNs develop a foundation of God-related beliefs and values, presence with self, presence with God, presence with others, presence with God and others, and become a channel of God. CONCLUSIONS: Developing spiritual care competence in assessing and meeting clients' spiritual needs is necessary to enhance person-centered practice, a vital aspect of holistic care. The model of presence can inform the development of spiritual care competencies and link to other nursing theories including Watson's theory of caring and Benner's novice to expert theory. Workplace support is needed for nurses to refine spiritual nursing care practices and integrate spiritual care into practice. Further research regarding the stages of presence could foster deeper understanding of how foundations of God-related values develop.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".