Religiousness, mental health, and quality of life in <scp>B</scp>razilian dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic kidney disease often use religion as a coping strategy to relieve suffering and serve as a source of strength. The aim of this study was to identify religious aspects associated with mental health and quality of life in Brazilian dialysis patients. A cross-sectional study was performed involving two dialysis centers in Brazil. Patients were selected consecutively over three typical dialysis treatment days. The questionnaire was self-administered and covered the following aspects: socio-demographic aspects, religiousness (using the Portuguese version of the Private and Social Religious Practice Scale), quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life brief Scale Brief Version), depression and anxiety (Beck Inventory), and pain grade. For statistical analysis, the hypothesis that different religious variables are associated (positively or negatively) with depressive/anxiety symptoms and quality of life in these patients was tested using linear regression, controlling for confounding variables. A total of 205 patients were invited to participate and 133 (64.8%) agreed to fill out the questionnaire. On the adjusted model, reading religious literature was found to be inversely associated with depressive symptoms (P < 0.001). In addition, the psychological domain of quality of life was positively associated with an increase in patient religiosity (P = 0.030) and greater religious importance for recovery from their dialysis condition (P = 0.016), whereas the environmental domain was positively associated with greater religious importance for recovery (P = 0.032). No religious aspects were associated with anxiety symptoms. Religiousness is associated with less depressive symptoms and better quality of life in Brazilian dialysis patients. Nephrologists should evaluate the patient's spirituality and religion in order to provide more integrative care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".