Religion and cancer prevention: study protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionSeveral studies explored a relationship between religiousness and the utilisation of cancer screenings, as religious people may obtain an increased social network or could have certain personality traits that enhance screening use. To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review that sums up the evidence gained from research on that relationship. Thus, our review aims to appraise the findings of observational studies regarding that relationship. Its findings may be useful in addressing specific target groups to increase ineffectively the low cancer screening rates.Methods and analysisEmploying a predefined search algorithm, three online databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo and PubMed) will be searched. In addition, the bibliographies of the studies included in our review will be searched through manually and independently by two reviewers. We are looking for observational studies (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) which examine the association between religion and cancer screening utilisation. However, studies regarding specific samples (as ethnic minorities or religious sects) will be excluded. We expect that the studies examine various dimensions of religion, such as religious attendance or religious intensity. We will extract data that describe methodology, sample characteristics and the findings concerning our object of investigation. Moreover, a quality assessment will be performed. Two reviewers will independently select the studies, extract the data and assess the studies’ quality. Disagreements will be dissolved by discussion or by inclusion of a third party. The findings will be presented narratively in text and tables. If possible, a meta-analysis will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationAs no primary data are collected, the approval from an ethics committee is not required. Our review will be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021229222.

Alternative Lenses for Qualitative Religion Research: Interstitial, Inverted, and Dialogical Approaches

This article explores new ways of looking at qualitative data in the study of religion. I call them the interstitial, inverted, and dialogical approaches. The interstitial approach provides an alternative to traditional triangulation by treating discrepancies between, say, self-reporting and observation of religious attendance not as a problem, but as an interstice where new information can be found. The inverted approach examines how discourses about “the other” – the other’s religion, in this case – enable researchers to analyze positive self-identifications, even when those are left unarticulated. Finally, the dialogical approach responds to a recurrent problem in qualitative religion research: researchers often assume that they ways in which people talk about religion have particular consequences. The dialogical approach enables researchers to demonstrate whether and how this is indeed so. The three approaches show how epistemological reframing – all three are, in different ways, constructionist approaches – enables novel thinking about “religion.”

Gaining Faith, Losing Faith: How Education Shapes the Relationship between Religious Transitions and Later Depression

Using the life course perspective, we assess the “resources” and “risks” to mental health associated with transitions in religious attendance between early life and midlife and how this process may be influenced by education. Drawing on over 35 years of prospective panel data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, baseline models suggest that stable, frequent attendance accumulated between adolescence to midlife and increases to frequent attendance by adulthood are associated with the lowest depression relative to consistent nonattenders. Individuals who declined in their religious participation report higher depression. Education conditioned this association, whereby declines in religious participation negatively impacted the health of those without a college degree more strongly and increases benefitted the well-educated to a greater extent. We combine insights from the life course perspective and work on social stratification and religiosity to interpret our results and offer directives for future research.

Do Racial Differences in Coping Resources Explain the Black–White Paradox in Mental Health? A Test of Multiple Mechanisms

A central paradox in the mental health literature is the tendency for black Americans to report similar or better mental health than white Americans despite experiencing greater stress exposure. However, black Americans’ higher levels of certain coping resources may explain this finding. Using data from the Nashville Stress and Health Study (n = 1,186), we examine whether black Americans have higher levels of self-esteem, social support, religious attendance, and divine control than white Americans and whether these resources, in turn, explain the black–white paradox in mental health. In adjusted models, the black–white paradox holds for depressive symptoms and any DSM-IV disorder. Findings indicate that black Americans have higher levels of self-esteem, family social support, and religiosity than white Americans. Causal mediation techniques reveal that self-esteem has the largest effect in explaining black–white differences in depressive symptoms, whereas divine control has the largest effect in explaining differences in disorder.

Bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health: findings from a British birth cohort study

BackgroundThere is evidence that religious attendance is associated with positive outcomes for mental health; however, there are few longitudinal studies, and even fewer, which take into account the possibility of bi-directional associations. This study aimed to investigate bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health.MethodsParticipants were 2125 study members who provided data at age 68–69 from the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development (1946 British birth cohort study). Mental health was assessed using the 28-item General Health Questionnaire at ages 53, 60–64 and 68–69. Religious attendance was measured using a 4-point scale (weekly=3, monthly=2, less than monthly=1 or never=0) at ages 43, 60–64 and 68–69. Cross-lagged path analysis was used to assess reciprocal associations between mental health and religious attendance, adjusting for gender and education.ResultsPrevious religious attendance was strongly related to later attendance (r=0.62–0.74). Similarly, mental health at baseline was strongly associated with subsequent mental health scores (r=0.46–0.54). Poor mental health at age 53 and 60–64 was associated with more frequent religious attendance at age 60–64 (b=0.04; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05), and 68–69 (b=0.03; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05), respectively. There was no evidence that religious attendance at age 43, 60–64 or 68–69 was associated with later or concurrent mental health.ConclusionUsing birth cohort data from the UK, it was found that poor mental health was associated with later religious attendance but not vice versa. Future research should confirm these novel findings and explore the underlying mechanisms between religious attendance and mental health.

Spiritual but not religious

In the past few decades, there has been a substantial increase in interest in scientific publications about the impact of religiosity/spirituality on health in general but also on mental health and well-being of patients. It would appear that some individuals are moving away from organized religion to a more spiritual dimension as reflected in so-called Western countries where people are increasingly describing themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’ (SBNR), thereby differentiating their beliefs and faiths from those proposed by religious organizations and from those people without religious beliefs. More pluralistic and opened views of religiosity and spirituality are understood as a sign of personality maturity and mental health. Otherwise, available evidence supports that religious affiliation and religious attendance seems to be a protective factor to mental health. Indeed, SBNR represents a very heterogeneous group of people and more research from different cultural backgrounds is required to recognize and understand SBNR individuals. An open-minded, interested, and respectful approach to SBNR individuals is essential for addressing their religiosity/spirituality needs in mental health practice, thereby increasing therapeutic engagement and adherence.