Using the bio-psycho-social-spiritual framework in holistic health and well-being: A case example of a community- and faith-based sports program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in other parts of the world, Canada’s citizens are confronted with biological, mental, and social crises. Despite the fact that these issues can be interrelated, they are regularly studied and addressed separately. The bio-psycho-social (BPS) framework was offered as an alternative approach for care because of its assumption that in order to produce a variety of interconnected outcomes relative to health and well-being, biological, mental, and social issues must all be considered. Some authors have argued, however, that without a spiritual component, the BPS framework is not holistic. As such, recent scholarship has explored the inclusion of a spiritual component in the framework, and social service professionals have been encouraged to consider designing interventions informed by the bio-psycho-social-spiritual (BPS-S) framework. Good examples of how to apply the framework in practice are limited. This case example describes how the BPS-S framework was applied to design a community-, sports-, and faith-based martial arts program in Ontario, Canada. The program draws upon a combination of sports-, community-, and Christian faith-based considerations to serve its participants, including vulnerable populations such as those with constrained access to social services due to mental health challenges, language barriers, or low levels of income. This article details some of the ways in which the operations of this program (e.g., activities, target audience, leadership) were informed by the BPS-S framework. This includes some of the advantages of drawing upon this framework to foster more nuanced and holistic well-being among participants. The article concludes with some limitations of the BPS-S framework and implications for applying it to other social service interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".