Advanced Practice Nurse Perceptions of Spirituality: A Global Quantitative Perspective in Everyday Life and Practice Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore Advanced Practice Nurses’ (APN) perceptions of spirituality globally, in both clinical practice and in everyday life, and to evaluate the usefulness of Spiritually Competent Practice as a relevant framework for holistic APN care. Design/Methods: A cross-sectional survey design was used. Respondents were recruited via convenience (snowballing) sampling. Spirituality in Everyday Life (SEDL) and Spirituality in Practice (SIP) were measured, as well as the importance of spiritual care competencies and Spiritually Competent Practice . Data was analyzed using Multiple Regression Analysis and Univariate Screening Analysis. Findings: A total of n = 641 APNs from 55 countries participated in the study. Participant responses yielded mean SEDL, SIP, and CONCEPT scores above the mid-point of the associated range for each measure, representing an overall positive perception of SEDL and SIP, and a similar positive perception of personal experience of Spiritually Competent Practice . This study offers further insight into perceptions and use of spirituality to ensure holistic care by APNs’ globally and how APNs’ view spirituality both within and outside of their work. Conclusion: Spirituality is pivotal in advanced practice and holistic nursing, fostering comprehensive and whole-person care and providing patients and practitioners with a sense of hope, meaning, and purpose. The results from this study highlight the need to ensure spirituality is fully understood by APNs’ and how APN education and continuing professional development should consider how best to integrate spirituality into holistic 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".