Religiosity and psychological resilience in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: an international cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The impact of religious/spiritual activities on clinical outcomes in patients with serious mental illnesses remains controversial, which was addressed in this international cross‐sectional study. Method Three‐hundred sixty‐nine subjects were recruited from Austria ( n = 189) and Japan ( n = 180), consisting of 112 outpatients with paranoid schizophrenia, 120 with bipolar I disorder ( DSM ‐ IV ), and 137 healthy controls. Religiosity was assessed in terms of attendance and importance of religious/spiritual activities, while resilience was assessed using the 25‐item Resilience Scale. General linear models were used to test whether higher religiosity will be associated with higher resilience, higher social functioning, and lower psychopathology. The association between levels of spiritual well‐being and resilience was also examined. Results Attendance of religious services ( F [4,365] = 0.827, P = 0.509) and importance of religion/spirituality ( F [3,365] = 1.513, P = 0.211) did not show significant associations with resilience. Regarding clinical measures, a modest association between higher importance of religion/spirituality and residual manic symptoms was observed in bipolar patients ( F [3,118] = 3.120, P = 0.029). In contrast to the findings regarding religiosity, spiritual well‐being showed a strong positive correlation with resilience ( r = 0.584, P < 0.001). Conclusion The protective effect of religiosity in terms of resilience, social functioning, and psychopathology was not evident in our sample. Spiritual well‐being appears more relevant to resilience than religiosity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".