4.7 Review

Religion, spirituality and depression in prospective studies: A systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 257, 期 -, 页码 428-438

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.063

关键词

Religion; Spirituality; Depression; Longitudinal; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many empirical studies have shown inverse associations between measures of religiousness and spirituality (R/S) and depression. Although the majority of these studies is cross-sectional, a considerable number of prospective studies have also appeared. Methods: The current systematic review offers an overview of the major pattern of associations between the measures of R/S and depression / depressive symptoms in 152 prospective studies (until 2017). Results: With on average two R/S measures per study (excluding measures of religious struggle, treated separately), 49% reported at least one significant association between R/S and better course of depression, 41% showed a non-significant association, and 10% indicated an association with more depression or mixed results. The estimated strength of these associations was modest (d = -0.18). Of the studies that included religious struggle, 59% reported a significant association with more depression (d = + 0.30). Especially among persons identified with psychiatric symptoms, R/S was significantly more often protective (d = -0.37). In younger samples and in samples of patients with medical illness, R/S was less often protective. Studies with more extensive adjustment for confounding variables showed significantly more often associations with less depression. Geographical differences in the findings were not present. Limitations: Given the huge heterogeneity of studies (samples size, duration of follow-up), the current synthesis of evidence is only exploratory. Conclusion: In about half of studies, R/S predicted a significant but modest decrease in depression over time. Further inquiry into bi-directional associations between religious struggle and (clinical) depression over time seems warranted.

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