| Title |
Religiosity/Spirituality and Physiological Markers of Health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Religion and Health, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10943-018-0663-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric C. Shattuck, Michael P. Muehlenbein |
| Abstract |
The long-standing interest in the effects of religiosity and spirituality (R/S) on health outcomes has given rise to a large and diverse literature. We conducted a meta-analysis on research involving R/S and physiological markers of health to elucidate both the scope and mechanism(s) of this phenomenon. A combined analysis found a significant, but small, beneficial effect. Subgroup analyses found that some measures of both extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity were significantly associated with health. Several outcome measures, including blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and cardiovascular health markers, were significantly associated with R/S. Our findings suggest that R/S benefits health, perhaps through minimizing the disruptive effects of stress/depression on inflammation. We hope that researchers can use these results to guide efforts aimed at elucidating the true mechanism(s) linking religious/spiritual beliefs and physical health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 156 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 21% |
| Unknown | 51 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 31 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 51 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,744,790
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Religion and Health
#149
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,484
of 330,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Religion and Health
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.