Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing awareness of the importance of spirituality in mental health as reflected in the addition of the category "religious or spiritual problem" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and the inclusion of knowledge of spirituality amongst the training objectives for psychiatry residents outlined by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. However, a survey of Canadian psychiatry residency programs indicated that minimal training was offered in this area (Grabovac & Ganesan, 2003). The present study explored psychiatry residents' attitudes regarding spirituality in psychiatry, and their interest in further learning on the topic. A total of 45 of 70 residents at one program completed the questionnaire. Most residents believed spirituality could have both positive (95%) and negative (80%) relationships to mental health. Although 91% felt it was appropriate to inquire about spirituality, only 72.7% endorsed actually addressing patients' spiritual problems. This discrepancy may be related to residents' varying opinions and comfort levels surrounding controversial issues. Although 84.4% reported feeling comfortable asking patients about spirituality, many had concerns about offending patients (48%) and about the ethical implications of such inquiry (55.6%). A majority of residents (61.8%) had not received any training in spirituality and medicine during medical school, and 80% said they would like to learn more on the subject. These results suggest that educational initiatives surrounding spirituality in psychiatry should be implemented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".