S2-3 Spirituality and palliative care: current evidence and future priorities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3></h3> Research conducted over the past few decades has made significant strides towards illuminating the role of spirituality during serious illness. We know spirituality is integral to patient and family lives as a framework for meaning-making, coping and decision-making. When spiritual needs are met, quality of life and hospice utilization are higher and costs are lower. However, while the evidence base is growing, in quantity and rigor, the field lacks gold standard approaches to definitions, measurement and assessment. To move forward, we must improve our evidence base with regard to 1) What are the definitions of spirituality and religion, and identifying key domains of those constructs 2) What is the impact of those domains on key health care outcomes; 3) What are the unique issues associated with research design? 4) How do we best assess spiritual needs and spiritual well-being? And 5) What do we know about interventions to address spiritual and existential care distress and well-being? This paper presents a discussion of our evidence base to date with regard to these key issues. It also offers priorities for improving the evidence base of spirituality and palliative care, so that this key aspect of patient and family experience is more fully understood and met with comprehensive and rigorously approaches to care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".