<p class="Articletitle"><span lang="EN-GB">The Role of Religious Culture in Medical Professionalism in a Muslim Arab Society</span></p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Calls have been made to integrate concepts and practices derived from Muslim culture into medical professionalism in Muslim societies. Little is known about how these religious cultural concepts (RCCs) influence medical practice and education. This study explored the influence of RCCs on medical professionalism in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a qualitative study that implemented a constructivist, grounded theory approach. Semi-structured interviews about RCCs and medical professionalism were conducted with 15 Saudi physicians at a single academic medical center. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants of different genders, generations, and specialties. Data collection and analysis were iterative. A theoretical framework was formulated. Results: Key findings: (i) the role of RCCs in medical professionalism is perceived to be constantly evolving due to the evolution of societal interpretations of RCCs; (ii) participants described applying two standards to judge what is professional: a medical standard and a religious cultural standard. Participants shifted between these two standards variably and non-linearly. This variable shifting altered the values shaping medical professionalism, at times unpredictably. Discussion: Academic Saudi physicians argued against assuming a stable traditional interpretation of RCCs, emphasized the evolving contribution of RCCs to medical professionalism, and indicated that the process of merging religious cultural and medical standards in medical practice is variable and may alter medical practice values. Therefore, these physicians perceived RCCs to be useful as supplements to but not as a backbone for medical professionalism. Careful consideration of the potential impact of RCCs on the values of medical professionalism is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.021 |
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".