Safeguarding the spiritual care of vulnerable inpatients during health crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spiritual care consists of supporting patients to experience meaning and hope in healthcare settings as well as access religious and spiritual services as desired by the patient. Proper spiritual care is associated with improved quality of life, increased functional status, and decreased depressive symptoms. Spiritual considerations are particularly important for inpatients as well as patients facing diagnosis with high levels of uncertainty or poor prognosis. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes to hospital policies that impair patient access to spiritual care. Policy modifications include elimination of volunteer programs, restriction of family visitations, and reduced access to community faith leaders, though not all patients are affected equally by these changes. Patients of low socioeconomic status and those with low technological literacy struggle to access spiritual care by alternate means (i.e. using communication devices). Additionally, linguistic and cultural bias may contribute to unequal patient access because policy exceptions are highly variable. Furthermore, socially secluded patients bear a disproportionate burden due to previous reliance on discontinued hospital volunteer programs. Suggestions are presented that target building more robust spiritual care systems within hospitals and minimizing the impact of future crises on spiritual care access. © 2021, University of Toronto. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".