Exploring Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy In Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT\nKey Words: religion, spirituality, sacred, intervention, spiritual intervention, soul\nOver the past twenty years, spirituality and religion have gained increased attention in the field of psychotherapy. In the research of psychotherapy, psychology, and social work, there is recognition that spirituality and religion can contribute to positive outcomes when people are faced with various challenges and distresses in life.\nThe main challenges are tied into determining how to move the research beyond the fact that spirituality has importance in psychotherapy to exploring how spirituality is integrated in psychotherapy. There are numerous questions to explore regarding the application of spirituality into psychotherapy. What is a spiritual intervention and how is it integrated into a theory of psychotherapy? How can a therapist use spirituality as a resource in therapy? Can any therapist, regardless of his/her personal beliefs and values, integrate spirituality into his/her clinical practice? Does a therapist’s perceptions and definition of spirituality determine his/her hesitancy to incorporate spirituality into therapy? These questions led me to the following research question: What is a therapist’s experience of integrating spirituality in the context of a client’s cognitive, emotional, or behavioural challenges and distresses in life?\nThis qualitative, phenomenological study investigates the meaning and essence of fifteen therapists’ experiences of integrating spirituality into psychotherapy.\nThis research takes place in a Canadian context where statistically, the demographic landscape reflects a spirituality that is moving towards a non–theistic perspective rather than a theistic–orientated worldview. Statistically, the Canadian landscape is less on common religious worldviews with more of an emphasis on spirituality. The Pew Research Center’s (2019) most recent survey in Canada, conducted in 2018, suggested a declining share of Canadians identify as Christian while an increasing share say they have no religion. The Angus Reid Institute (2017) identified the non-believers at 19% of the total population; spiritually uncertain 30%; the privately faithful 30% and 21% religiously committed. Secondly, in the Canadian context, the term spiritual care is associated with psychotherapy more so then the term pastoral counseling.\nThe data analysis is guided by a phenomenological, heuristic method, which will explore the lived experiences of therapists who practice a spiritually integrated approach to psychotherapy. The implications for practice will be addressed.
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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".