Exploring religiosity's impact on end-of-life care: A call for nursing inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End-of-life care (EOLC) remains a pivotal aspect of nursing practice, yet its delivery often varies due to numerous influencing factors. Religiosity emerges as a significant but understudied determinant affecting EOLC provision. Religiosity is an all-encompassing term defining a person’s public or private involvement in religious groups or activities. This opinion piece delves into the nexus between religiosity and nursing practice, emphasizing the need for empirical inquiry to elucidate its role in shaping care dynamics. Drawing upon existing literature, it describes religiosity's multifaceted influence on nursing behaviours and decision-making in EOLC settings. The piece advocates for research efforts aimed at understanding its impact on care quality and equity. By fostering a deeper comprehension of how religiosity interacts with nursing practice, healthcare systems can strive towards delivering more personalized, equitable, and dignified EOLC experiences for patients and families.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".