Recreational therapists’ status and perceptions of incorporating spirituality in therapeutic recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore recreational therapists’ status and perceptions of incorporating spirituality into the field of Therapeutic Recreation (TR). The literature indicates that healthcare is moving to treat individuals more holistically and is evidenced by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organization’s (JCAHO) mandating that all of their accredited agencies conduct a spiritual assessment on their clients (Hodge, 2006). Recent studies in TR specifically have found that some recreational therapists (RTs) are already applying spirituality in practice and interested in receiving additional education on how to assess and treat individuals’ spiritual needs. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted on RTs’ perceptions and the status of spirituality in TR services. An online questionnaire was developed through Qualtrics and sent out to 6,200 full-time Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists (CTRSs) practicing in the US and Canada. Data were collected and analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software, version 26. A total of 411 CTRSs responded to the survey. The results of this study indicated that respondents not only thought addressing clients’ spirituality needs is important, but also that they are currently doing so throughout the TR therapeutic process. Results also indicated that spirituality has a role in TR practice and that there is a need for more training on addressing clients’ spiritual needs. Several recommendations were made for the inclusion of spirituality in the TR scope of practice, education, and future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".