Prevalence, Predictors and Correlates of Religious and Spiritual Struggles in Palliative Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Religion and spirituality (r/s) are important resources in coping with cancer. However, there are aspects of r/s, such as religious and spiritual struggles, found to be associated with poorer outcomes. A new measure has been adapted from the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSS) to assess r/s struggles: the RSS-14. This concise measure allows for the assessment of multiple types of r/s struggles for people from different religious backgrounds or none. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence, predictors and correlates of r/s struggles as measured by the RSS-14 and its subdomains in a cancer population receiving palliative care. METHODS: Data were collected from six outpatient palliative care services across the US. Inclusion criteria for patients were age 55 or older with a cancer diagnosis. In addition to demographic and r/s characteristics, study measures included the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) and the Quality of Life at the End of Life (QUAL-E). RESULTS: The study included 331 participants. Some r/s struggle was reported by 66%, moderate to high struggle for at least one item was reported by 20% of the patients. In bivariate analyses, r/s struggle was associated with greater symptom burden, greater dignity-related problems and poorer quality of life; in multivariable analyses, dignity-related problems remained a predictor of total r/s struggle. CONCLUSION: R/S struggles may compromise well-being for cancer patients receiving palliative care. Clinicians should consider periodic screening for r/s struggles and referrals for spiritual care if indicated.
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".