MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298326637 · doi:10.1007/s10943-022-01679-2

Health and Social Care Outcomes in the Community: Review of Religious Considerations in Interventions with Muslim-Minorities in Australia, Canada, UK, and the USA

2022· article· en· W4298326637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen McLaren, Mohammad Hamiduzzaman, Emi Patmisari, Michelle Jones, Renae Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFlinders University
KeywordsPsychological interventionReligiosityIntervention (counseling)Health careIslamPsychologyMedicineGerontologySocial psychologyNursingPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this integrative review included examining the intervention characteristics, religious tailoring, and behavioural outcomes of health and social care interventions with Muslim-minorities in Australia, Canada, UK, and the USA. Nineteen articles were included, and each showed some level of improved health and social care outcomes associated with interventions that were religiously tailored to Islamic teachings, and when notions of health were extended to physical, psychological, spiritual and social domains. Future studies should measure levels of religiosity to understand whether religiously tailored interventions produce a significant intervention effect when compared to non-religiously tailored interventions with Muslims.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and HealthSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207