Assessment of religious and spiritual beliefs dimension of life quality in a sample of fifth year medical college students of University of Baghdad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although studies regarding the role of religious beliefs in psychological well being are relatively recent, the importance of people’s religiousness and spirituality for their health status has been widely acclaimed based on hundreds of published studies.Patients and Methods: The Arabic Modified version of WHOQOL-SRPB (World health organization quality of life-spirituality, religiosity and personal belief) questionnaire was selfadministered to a systematic random sample of 100 fifth year medical students.Results: Around a quarter (21-28%) of subjects perceived religiousness as very to extremely important. This percentage raised to 38% for spirituality and further to 61% for personal believes. The mean score for the “death and dying” facet was the lowest of all facets. The rate of students being satisfied on the overall SRPB measure was high ranging between 85 to 90%. Conclusion: It was concluded that the students sample showed high rate of satisfaction by their QOL-SRPB instrument. It is realized that these religious and spiritual beliefs contributed to a good response to quality of life as it was similar to another sample in a nearby stable country (Jordan).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".