Associations of online religious participation during COVID-19 lockdown with subsequent health and well-being among UK adults

Religion and survival among European older adults

There are several pathways through which religion can affect longevity. Previous research, predominately from North America, has shown decreased mortality risk for participants that attended religious services. This study aims to examine the association between religion and all-cause mortality in a large sample of older European adults, comparing religious affiliations, and using prayer frequency as well as frequency of participation in a religious organisation as measures of religiousness. To this end, a total of 16,062 participants from the Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe were employed for a survival analysis (median follow-up 11.3 years; 3790 recorded deaths). Following a religion was negatively associated with mortality regardless of demographic and socioeconomic factors (HR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.89). Large differences in the median survival of participants from different religious affiliations can be mostly attributed to demographic and socioeconomic factors. Both frequency of prayer and religious participation exhibited a significant positive dose-response relationship with survival despite adjustments, although the results for religious participation were more profound. Changes on the religiosity levels of the European population will require additional research on the subject in the future.

COVID-19 Pandemic Control Measures and Their Impact on University Students and Family Members in a Central Region of Spain

The first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic were times of great change in the lives of university students and their families in Spain. The aim of this study was to explore the psychosocial aspects and preventive measures carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic by students and family members of the nursing degree students of the University of Valladolid (Spain). The number of people surveyed was 877, by means of an ad hoc questionnaire. Relationships between variables were established by means of the Chi-square test and Student's t-test. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was generated. The significance level used was 0.05. Students and family members maintained preventive measures= such as hand washing, correct use of masks =in closed places, avoiding crowds and maintaining social distance, but at low rates (close to 20% in all cases). Regarding psychosocial aspects, 41.07% of the participants suffered from anxiety and loneliness, while 5.2% needed to take drugs to reduce anxiety or sleep and 66.07% were dependent on technology. Suicidal behavior is related to stress, anxiety, loneliness, poor family relationships, psychotropic drug use and technology abuse. The pandemic has caused life changes in university students and their families at the psychosocial level, generating high figures of suicidal ideation regardless of age. Preventive measures adopted to control the pandemic have not been followed for the most part.

Spirituality in Serious Illness and Health

IMPORTANCE

Despite growing evidence, the role of spirituality in serious illness and health has not been systematically assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence concerning spirituality in serious illness and health and to identify implications for patient care and health outcomes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science identified articles with evidence addressing spirituality in serious illness or health, published January 2000 to April 2022. Independent reviewers screened, summarized, and graded articles that met eligibility criteria. Eligible serious illness studies included 100 or more participants; were prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional descriptive studies, meta-analyses, or randomized clinical trials; and included validated spirituality measures. Eligible health outcome studies prospectively examined associations with spirituality as cohort studies, case-control studies, or meta-analyses with samples of at least 1000 or were randomized trials with samples of at least 100 and used validated spirituality measures. Applying Cochrane criteria, studies were graded as having low, moderate, serious, or critical risk of bias, and studies with serious and critical risk of bias were excluded. Multidisciplinary Delphi panels consisting of clinicians, public health personnel, researchers, health systems leaders, and medical ethicists qualitatively synthesized and assessed the evidence and offered implications for health care. Evidence-synthesis statements and implications were derived from panelists' qualitative input; panelists rated the former on a 9-point scale (from "inconclusive" to "strongest evidence") and ranked the latter by order of priority.

FINDINGS

Of 8946 articles identified, 371 articles met inclusion criteria for serious illness; of these, 76.9% had low to moderate risk of bias. The Delphi panel review yielded 8 evidence statements supported by evidence categorized as strong and proposed 3 top-ranked implications of this evidence for serious illness: (1) incorporate spiritual care into care for patients with serious illness; (2) incorporate spiritual care education into training of interdisciplinary teams caring for persons with serious illness; and (3) include specialty practitioners of spiritual care in care of patients with serious illness. Of 6485 health outcomes articles, 215 met inclusion criteria; of these, 66.0% had low to moderate risk of bias. The Delphi panel review yielded 8 evidence statements supported by evidence categorized as strong and proposed 3 top-ranked implications of this evidence for health outcomes: (1) incorporate patient-centered and evidence-based approaches regarding associations of spiritual community with improved patient and population health outcomes; (2) increase awareness among health professionals of evidence for protective health associations of spiritual community; and (3) recognize spirituality as a social factor associated with health in research, community assessments, and program implementation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review, analysis, and process, based on highest-quality evidence available and expert consensus, provided suggested implications for addressing spirituality in serious illness and health outcomes as part of person-centered, value-sensitive care.