MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411724662 · doi:10.1177/10499091251355574

Impact of Spirituality in Christians With Serious Illness – A Phenomenological Study

2025· article· en· W4411724662 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Lentz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityPrayerFaithGratitudePsychologyForgivenessInterpretative phenomenological analysisSocial psychologySociologyQualitative researchMedicineReligious studiesTheologyAlternative medicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeking support within the faith community is frequently noted in Christians with serious illness. To assure needs are identified and to better understand the implications of spirituality in people with serious illness, a phenomenological study following the Giorgi methodology was conducted with 20 Christian individuals living with serious illness while residing in Greenwood, South Carolina, a community in the heart of the Bible Belt of America. Research interviews captured four major structures with accompanying constituent parts. The structures and constituent parts include sovereignty of God with unpredictability, relationship with God especially through prayer, illness-related loss with accompanying guilt for the subsequent burden created for the caregivers, and gratitude for the love and support shown to the participant by loved ones and others. The impact of the structures and constituent parts of spirituality identified by the Christians who participated in this study demonstrates the value and significance of the faith-based spiritual support received during their illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.382 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207