Practice-based evidence for spiritually integrated psychotherapies: Examining trajectories of psychological and spiritual distress.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this practice-based evidence study were to (a) examine clients' trajectories of psychological and spiritual distress over the course of spiritually integrated psychotherapies (SIPs) and (b) explore the role of varying types of spiritual interventions in these outcomes. In total, 164 practitioners of SIPs from 37 settings in a practice-research network administered the Clinically Adaptive Multidimensional Outcome Survey (Sanders et al., 2018) at each session with 1,227 clients and reported their use of theoretical orientations and spiritual interventions on an after-session summary checklist. Focusing on sessions over an initial 12-week period, latent growth curve modeling analyses revealed that clients, on average, experienced significant reduction of psychological distress during their engagement in SIPs with improvements occurring most sharply in the first month. Further, other findings revealed a salient reciprocal interplay with spiritual distress throughout treatment, such that clients who were struggling with their religious faith and/or spirituality were more psychologically distressed and displayed a more attenuated and gradual pattern of symptom reduction. In such cases, clinicians frequently utilized spiritual interventions involving basic skills (e.g., spiritual assessment), virtues (e.g., discuss self-control), and religious attachment (e.g., encourage acceptance of divine love) that were uniquely associated with clients' rate and duration of decline in psychological and spiritual distress. The present findings affirm the routine effectiveness of SIPs along with highlighting the potential value of certain spiritual interventions in supporting holistic recovery among clients who want clinicians to be culturally responsive to their spiritual and/or religious identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".