Spirituality in the health curricula in Canada: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The spiritual dimensions of health offer important protective benefits to young people. Yet, little is known about how concern for these is operationalised for youth in school curricula. Objectives: This rapid review examined if, and if so how, the spiritual dimensions of health were being conceptualised in school curricula and, in turn, how the curricula proposed that the spiritual health of young people is best supported. Method: Using National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) guidelines, we conducted a rapid review of all 10 provincial and 3 territorial physical education and health curricula in Canada. Data included all curriculum documents containing any reference(s) to spiritual/spirituality/religion that were extracted into a master table. Coding and thematic analysis were used to categorise and synthesise the data iteratively. Results: In total, 115 curricula documents were retrieved from the web, of which 67 were included for screening. Analyses revealed how the spiritual dimensions of health are used in curricula overall and provide evidence that while the spiritual dimensions of health offer important protective benefits to Canadian young people, they are often not included in health curricula in Canada, and when they are, they are not always rooted in theory or evidence. Conclusion: Details about how the spiritual dimensions of health are operationalised in the school curriculum remain underdeveloped and vague. Some curricula offer promising ideas about how the spiritual dimensions of health can be used to support child health and well-being. However, educational settings currently provide a missed opportunity to support the spiritual health of young Canadians.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".