Spirituality and religion and the role in improving teaching approaches to diversity and inclusion in the nursing and midwifery curriculum: an explanatory sequential multi-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spirituality and religion play an important role in many people's lives. While healthcare professionals support people from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures and belief systems, these dimensions are often missing from assessments and care plans. Using the lens of nursing and midwifery students and academic teaching staff, this study sought to explore how the concepts of spirituality and religion could be better incorporated into nursing and midwifery teaching programmes, while acting as a possible conduit for exploring the richness of diversity and inclusion. METHODS: An explanatory sequential multi-methods study, to include an online survey (n = 114 responses) and focus groups (n = 11 participants). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Integration of the quantitative and qualitative data was achieved through a pillar integration process. RESULTS: The concept of spirituality was viewed as predominately positive, something personal to individuals and linked to how people make sense of their place in the world. Religion was seen as a connectedness to a community with common beliefs and a shared identity. However, the rules and regulations associated with religion, were perceived by some respondents as leading to intolerance and the exclusion of others. Overall, participants believed that greater awareness of spirituality and religion could help people to be more aware and to be more welcoming of diversity leading to greater inclusion. Participants believed that these concepts should be included in teaching programmes and integrated with clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Students and clinical practitioners should be encouraged to increase their knowledge and awareness towards spiritual and religious issues. This awareness may begin with students and clinical practitioners reflecting on their own beliefs and values enabling them to be more sensitive to and respond to the beliefs and values of others. Insights gained by this study may be valuable to healthcare educators and policymakers highlighting the need for greater awareness of spirituality and religion in health and social care training. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: N/A.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".