4.5 Article

The association of religiosity with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the United Kingdom

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 139, 期 2, 页码 164-173

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12972

关键词

religiosity; suicidality; risk factor; nationally representative study; the United Kingdom

资金

  1. Miguel Servet - National R + D + I [CP13/00150, PI15/00862]
  2. ISCIII-General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The goal was to analyze the association of religiosity with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in a UK nationally representative sample. Methods This study used cross-sectional data from 7403 people who participated in the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS). Religion was assessed with the question 'Do you have a specific religion?' with 'yes' and 'no' answer options. Lifetime and past 12-month suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were assessed. The association between religiosity and suicidality was studied in multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for sociodemographic, behavioural, and psychopathological factors. Results Compared to those without a religion, the prevalence of past 12-month suicidal ideation (3.2% vs. 5.4%), past 12-month suicide attempts (0.4% vs. 0.9%), lifetime suicidal ideation (11.2% vs. 16.4%), and lifetime suicide attempts (3.6% vs. 6.0%) was lower among those with a religion. In the fully adjusted model, having a religion was significantly associated with lower odds for all types of suicidality except past 12-month suicide attempts: suicidal ideation (past 12-month: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-0.99; lifetime: OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.69-0.99) and suicide attempts (past 12-month: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.35-1.45; lifetime: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53-0.90). Conclusion There is a negative association between religiosity and suicidality in the UK. Future studies should focus on the underlying mechanisms.

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

4.5
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