Assessment of religious coping and psychological distress as screening tools in community mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the use of SRQ-20 and RCOPE as complementary tools to the Nursing Process. Methods: This is a descriptive and cross-sectional study carried out with 313 adults from two therapeutic communities (Therapeutic communities are usually residential facilities in which the community structure and function are agents of change. Community members progress through varying roles and responsibilities in their recovery and collectively ensure day-to-day functioning of the community.). and a community mental health treatment unit, located in two cities in northern Paraná (Brazil). Results: The sample consisted of 313 individuals, aged between 18 and 68 years (M = 36.87, SD = 13.21). The majority of participants (57.9%) were female, of east-asian descent (35.7%), with a socioeconomic level equivalent to US$252.48 (65.8%) and incomplete secondary education (60%). Of the sample, 43.4% (n = 136) had a depressive disorder and 23.7% (n = 74) had an anxiety disorder. As for suicidal behavior, 52.1% of the participants mentioned having suicidal ideation at some point in their lives. Of those with ideation (n = 163), more than half (54.6%) reported not seeking help in times of crisis. Based on the frequencies obtained using the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20), 41.9% of the subjects obtained a score of 8 points, representing the cut-off point for risk of mental disorders. Regarding the hours of religious practices carried out by the participant (measured in weekly hours), the average obtained was 2.70 hours. Conclusions: The application of the SRQ-20 helped identify that 48.58% of the individuals were classified as suffering from psychological distress. The early identification of signs of suffering and religious coping strategies have proven to be beneficial and necessary for the nurse's work process, as it adds better direction to the anamnesis and also to the alignment of the health team in promoting comprehensive care, including aspects of the spiritual dimension in nursing care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".