4.7 Article

Spiritual and religious identities predict the use of complementary and alternative medicine among US adults

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 9-12

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.08.029

关键词

Health; Behavior; New Age; MIDUS; Adults

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH/NICHD) [5 R24 HD050924]
  2. National Institute on Aging (NIH/NIA) [5 T32 AG00155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine whether spiritual and religious identities predict complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use above and beyond other known influences such as gender, region of residence, social status, personality, health, and access to conventional medicine. Methods. Analyzing data from the 1995-1996 National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (n = 3032), this study examines the correlations between four aspects of spirituality/religiousness-i.e., spiritual only, religious only, both spiritual and religious, and neither spiritual nor religious and six measures of CAM. Results. Compared with spiritual only persons, the odds of using energy therapies are 86% lower for spiritual and religious persons, 65% lower for religious only persons, and 52% lower for neither spiritual nor religious persons. Compared to spiritual only persons, spiritual and religious individuals are 43% more likely to use body-mind therapies in general; however, when this category does not contain prayer, meditation, or spiritual healing, they are 44% less likely. Religious only individuals are disinclined toward CAM use. Conclusions. After controlling for established predictors including educational attainment, personality, social support, and access to conventional medicine, the present study demonstrates that spirituality and religiousness are associated, in unique ways, with CAM use. Additional research on this topic is clearly warranted. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据