Spirituality in Coping with Pain in Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirituality has been identified as an adaptive coping strategy and a predictor of better quality of life in cancer patients. Despite the relevance of spirituality in the health-disease process, it is noted that the assessment of the impact of spirituality in coping with pain is still incipient. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of spirituality in coping with pain in cancer patients. This quantitative cross-sectional study was carried out in a medium-sized hospital and a cancer patient support institution located in northeastern Brazil. A questionnaire with sociodemographic and clinical variables was used and the following instruments were applied: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); Neuropathic Pain 4 Questions (DN4); Spiritual Wellbeing Scale (SWBS); WHOQOL Spirituality, Religiousness and Personal Beliefs (WHOQOL-SRPB). Most people with no pain had higher scores on the SWBS. Neuropathic pain was identified in 23 patients and was associated with the highest level of spirituality used as a way of coping with pain. As faith increases, pain decreases in intensity by 0.394 points. On the other hand, as inner peace increases, pain increases by 1.485 points. It is concluded that faith is a strategy for coping with pain, in particular neuropathic pain, minimizing its intensity. On the other hand, greater levels of inner peace allow to increase the awareness of the painful sensation. It is expected that these findings may be useful to integrate spirituality care in healthcare facilities as a resource for positive coping for people in the process of becoming ill, contributing to the therapeutic path and favouring a new meaning to the experience of the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".