Religious Service Attendance, Religious Coping, and Risk of Hypertension in Women Participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between religious service attendance, religious coping, and hypertension is unclear. Prospective research and assessment of potential mediators is needed to understand this relationship. From 2001-2013, we prospectively followed 44,281 nonhypertensive women who provided information on religious service attendance and religious coping in the Nurses' Health Study II. Cox regression and mediation analyses were conducted to assess associations between religion and hypertension. There were 453,706 person-years of follow-up and 11,773 incident hypertension cases. Women who attended religious services were less likely to develop hypertension. In the fully adjusting model, compared with women who never or almost never attend religious meetings or services, women attending less than once per month (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91, 1.03), 1-3 times per month (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.00), once per week (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.98), or more than once per week (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97) showed a decreased risk of hypertension (P for trend = 0.001). Body mass index was an important mediator (11.5%; P < 0.001). Religious coping had a marginal association with hypertension. In conclusion, religious service attendance was modestly associated with hypertension in an inverse dose-response manner and partially mediated through body mass index. Future research is needed on biological or social reasons for the lower risk of hypertension.
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 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".