Individual-level Associations Between Indicators of Social Capital and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Scores in Communities With High Mortality in Korea

Religious and secular spirituality: Methodological implications of definitions for health research

The importance of spirituality as a research topic has been increasingly recognized, which has led to several studies on the topic. Areas including psychology, medicine, and nursing have produced studies on spirituality under a plurality of definitions and methods, which reveals the complexity of the theme. However, this has resulted in a range of potential problems, including: (1) the use of overlapping and contradictory terms between studies, or even within the same study, (2) research methodologies that do not fit the definitions (sometimes unreflectively) assumed by the authors, (3) difficulties, or even the impossibility, of comparing the results of studies, (4) controversies in respect of the inclusion/exclusion of secular groups in research on spirituality, and (5) ambiguous measurements, often being exclusively dependent on each participant's individual interpretation of what spirituality means. This article discusses these problems, recommends theoretical and methodological alternatives and presents taxonomy of definitions of spirituality.

A Systematic Review on Alcohol Consumption among Non-Religious and Religious Adults

Background: Research has suggested that religiosity is a protective factor in alcohol use, but this is an area that could be further explored. Objective: To undertake a systematic review of the literature on drinking patterns and their relationship with religiosity and non-religiosity in adult populations. Methods: We searched for relevant studies using the PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Psych-INFO databases. This review included only studies of people aged 18 and over which had a non-religious group as a comparison measure. Results: Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The present review showed that religious people tend to have lower alcohol consumption compared to those with no religion. However, this difference appears only when religions are analyzed together without differentiating between religious affiliations (Catholicism, Buddhism, Evangelicalism, etc.). Some religious affiliations, such as Buddhism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, appear to be risk factors for alcohol consumption. Definitions of risk consumption showed high heterogeneity, ranging from eight to 21 or more doses per week, a difference of 13 doses of alcohol between studies. Conclusions: The present review showed that religious people tend to have lower alcohol consumption compared to non-religious people. However, the results are contradictory when religious affiliations are analyzed separately and compared with non-religious participants. Adequately understanding which dimensions of religiosity and non-religiosity (e.g., group processes, engagement, meaning, rules of behavior) are protective in adulthood is fundamental to the construction of more effective interventions in this age group.