Religious Practice and Psychological Distress: The Importance of Gender, Ethnicity and Immigrant Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between religious practice and psychological distress in a culturally diverse urban population to explore how religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, and immigrant status affect this relationship. Data were drawn from a study of health care utilization in Montreal. A stratified community sample of 1485 yielded four religious groups: Protestant (n = 205), Catholic (813), Jewish (201), and Buddhist (150), and a group with no declared religion (116). The sample was composed of five ethnocultural groups: Anglophone Canadian-born, Francophone Canadian-born, Afro-Caribbean, Vietnamese, and Filipino immigrants. Psychological distress was assessed with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Religious involvement was measured with three items: 1) declared religion; 2) frequency of attendance at religious meetings; and 3) frequency of religious rituals performed at home. Multiple regression models examined the relationship of religious practice to distress, controlling for sociodemographic variables including ethnicity. Overall, attendance at religious services was associated with a lower GHQ score. Attendance at religious services also was inversely related to psychological distress for females, Protestants, Catholics, Filipinos, and Afro-Caribbeans; but not for males, Buddhists or Jews. Religious practice at home was not associated with level of distress for any group. The 'no declared religion' group had the highest mean GHQ score of all the groups. Results confirm the association between attendance at religious services and lower levels of distress, but reveal ethnospecific and gender effects indicating the need to understand the impact of religious practice on mental health in social and cultural context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".