Canadian Psychiatric Inpatient Religious Commitment: An Association with Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research indicates that religion may have a positive effect on coping and possibly enhance clinical outcomes. This study aims to determine the level of religious interest of psychiatric inpatients and to assess whether religious commitment has an impact on selected outcome variables. METHODS: There were 88 consecutive adult patients (50% men) who were admitted to a Canadian tertiary care psychiatry inpatient unit and were interviewed about their religious beliefs and practices. Patients with a Beck Depression score of 12 or more were included for outcome analysis. RESULTS: A total of 59% believed in a God who rewards and punishes, 27% had a high frequency of worship attendance, and 35% prayed once or more daily. More frequent worship attenders had less severe depressive symptoms, shorter current length of stay, higher satisfaction with life, and lower rates of current and lifetime alcohol abuse (P < 0.05), when compared with those with less frequent or no worship attendance. In contrast, private spirituality was associated with lower depressive symptoms and current alcohol use only (P < 0.05), and prayer frequency had no significant associations. DISCUSSION: This study indicates that certain religious practices may protect against severity of symptoms, hospital use, and enhance life satisfaction among psychiatric inpatients. This is the first known Canadian study that examines religious commitment among psychiatric inpatients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".