Linking Spiritual and Religious Coping With the Quality of Life of Community-Dwelling Older Adults and Nursing Home Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the effect of Positive and Negative Spiritual and Religious Coping (SRC) upon older Brazilian’s quality of life (QOL). Method: A secondary analysis of data collected from 77 nursing home residents (NHRs; M age = 76.56) and 326 community-dwelling residents (CDRs; M age = 67.22 years) was conducted. Participants had completed the Brief SRC, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) and World Health Organization Quality of Life-OLD (WHOQOL-OLD). A General Linear Model regression analysis was undertaken to assess the effects of SRC upon 10 aspects of participants’ QOL. Results: Positive ( F = 6.714, df = 10, p < .001) as opposed to Negative ( F = 1.194, df = 10, p = .294) SRC was significantly associated with QOL. Positive SRC was more strongly associated with NHR’s physical, psychological, and environmental QOL, and their perceived sensory abilities, autonomy, and opportunities for intimacy. Conclusion: Positive SRC behaviors per se were significantly associated with QOL ratings across both study samples. The effect size of Positive SRC was much larger among NHRs across six aspects of QOL. Place of residence (POR) in relation to SRC and QOL in older age warrants further study.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".