Religious involvement, spirituality and personal meaning for life: Existential predictors of psychological wellbeing in community-residing and institutional care elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychosocial model of mental health postulates that wellbeing in late life is significantly influenced by several externally generated factors such as social resources, income and negative life events. More recently, the gerontological literature is drawing attention to the increasingly influential role of existential factors such as religiosity, spirituality and personal meaning in the psychological wellbeing of older adults. This study examined the unique and combined contribution of specific dimensions of religiosity, spirituality and personal meaning in life as predictors of wellbeing in samples of community-residing and institutionalized older adults. Using hierarchical regression analyses, the results showed that personal meaning, involvement in formal religion, participation in spiritual practices, importance of religion, degree of comfort derived from religion, sense of inner peace with self, and accessibility to religious resources were significant predictors of wellbeing for the combined sample. The pattern of associations between wellbeing and the preceding psychosocial dimensions was, however, stronger for the institutionalized elders. The findings confirmed that existential measures of personal meaning, religiosity and spirituality contributed more significantly to the variance in wellbeing than did demographic variables or other traditional measures such as social resources, physical health or negative life events. The importance of existential constructs of religiosity, spirituality and personal meaning in helping older adults to transcend old age stresses and sustain wellbeing are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".