↓ Skip to main content

Advancing our understanding of religion and spirituality in the context of behavioral medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Title
Advancing our understanding of religion and spirituality in the context of behavioral medicine
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10865-016-9755-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Crystal L. Park, Kevin S. Masters, John M. Salsman, Amy Wachholtz, Andrea D. Clements, Elena Salmoirago-Blotcher, Kelly Trevino, Danielle M. Wischenka

Abstract

Recognizing and understanding the potentially powerful roles that religiousness and spirituality (RS) may serve in the prevention and amelioration of disease, as well as symptom management and health related quality of life, significantly enhances research and clinical efforts across many areas of behavioral medicine. This article examines the knowledge established to date and suggests advances that remain to be made. We begin with a brief summary of the current knowledge regarding RS as related to three exemplary health conditions: (a) cardiovascular disease; (b) cancer; and, (c) substance abuse. We then focus on particular concerns for future investigations, emphasizing conceptual issues, possible mediators and moderators of relationships or effects, and methodology. Our discussion is framed by a conceptual model that may serve to guide and organize future investigations. This model highlights a number of important issues regarding the study of links between RS and health: (a) RS comprise many diverse constructs, (b) the mechanisms through which RS may influence health outcomes are quite diverse, and (c) a range of different types of health and health relevant outcomes may be influenced by RS. The multidimensional nature of RS and the complexity of related associations with different types of health relevant outcomes present formidable challenges to empirical study in behavioral medicine. These issues are referred to throughout our review and we suggest several solutions to the presented challenges in our summary. We end with a presentation of barriers to be overcome, along with strategies for doing so, and concluding thoughts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 175 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 43 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 51 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,379,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#809
of 1,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,171
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.