MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404425085 · doi:10.25259/ijpc_155_2024

Spiritual Intelligence and Spiritual Care in Nursing Practice: A Bibliometric Review

2024· review· en· W4404425085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jos K Stiliya, Janis Maria Antony, Jasmine Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Palliative Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careScopusCurriculumNursing researchPublishingMedicineSpiritual careNursingField (mathematics)Alternative medicineSpiritualityPsychologyMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spiritual intelligence (SI) has recently gained traction in various fields, including nursing. Given the increasing emphasis on patient-centred care and the holistic well-being of patients and nurses, SI is particularly relevant in nursing practice. A bibliometric analysis of recent publications (2014-2024) in the field helps synthesise and evaluate the existing research on SI in the general field of nursing, identify literature gaps, suggest future research directions and raise awareness of the importance of SI in nursing practice. The present study reports bibliometric data (n = 461) from the Scopus database on SI, spiritual quotient and spiritual care in nursing and health care. The data are analysed using MS Excel and VOSviewer software. The publications' trend analysis revealed a significant increase in SI-related publications since 2015. The study presents top-cited articles. Journal of Religion and Health was found to be a prominent journal with the maximum number of publications, and Sage was found to be the top publisher of journals with articles on SI. Network visualisation reveals central figures such as Wilfred McSherry, Trove Giske, Elizabeth Johnston Taylor, Fiona Timmins, Silvia Caldeira and Linda Ross as key researchers in the field. The United States and Iran have the most substantial connections of authors publishing on SI. This study reveals an increasing interest in SI and care within nursing research, confirming its growing significance in the field. By reporting areas where research on SI in nursing remains underdeveloped, the study paves the way for the development of new or updated curricula in nursing programs. The study can guide faculty development initiatives by highlighting the importance of SI and providing resources for educators to incorporate these concepts into their teaching. This study presents specific research questions to address these knowledge gaps. Future studies which can address these questions will enrich nursing education and practice, leading to improved patient outcomes and enhanced nurse well-being using the full potential of SI in nursing practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.027
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.386 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Palliative CareSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207