4.4 Review

Religious involvement as a social determinant of sleep: an initial review and conceptual model

期刊

SLEEP HEALTH
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 325-330

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleh.2018.04.001

关键词

Religion; Sleep; Mental health; Substance use; Stress; Allostatic load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although numerous empirical studies show that religious involvement is associatedwith better health and longer life expectancies, researchers have virtually ignored possible links between religious involvement and sleep. To spark greater attention to this important and understudied area of sleep research, we review previous population-based studies, propose an initial conceptual model of the likely pathways for these associations, and offer several avenues for future research. Our review and critical examination suggest that religious involvement is indeed a social determinant of sleep in the United States. More religious adults in particular tend to exhibit healthier sleep outcomes than their less religious counterparts. This general pattern can be seen across large population-based studies using a narrow range of religionmeasurements and sleep outcomes. Our conceptual model, grounded in the broader religion and health literature, suggests that religious involvement may be associated with healthier sleep outcomes by limiting mental, chemical, and physiological arousal associated with psychological distress, substance use, stress exposure, and allostatic load. As we move forward, researchers should incorporate (1) more rigorous longitudinal research designs, (2) more sophisticated sleep measurements, (3) more complex conceptual models, (4) more comprehensive measurements of religion and related concepts, and (5) more measures of religious struggles to better assess the dark side of religion. Research along these lines would provide a more thorough understanding of the intersection of religious involvement and population sleep. (C) 2018 National Sleep Foundation. Published by 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

4.4
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