Exploring the Impact of Religion and Spirituality on Mental Health and Coping in a Group of Canadian Psychiatric Outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that religious/spiritual (R/S) beliefs can impact mental health. In addition, individual attachment impacts R/S views and mental health. Still, clinical studies are lacking. This study explores the presence of R/S beliefs and attachment insecurity in psychiatric outpatients and the implication for mental health. Ninety psychiatric outpatients reported their R/S beliefs and were categorized into two groups: religious/spiritual (+R/S) or nonreligious/spiritual (-R/S). The groups were compared on attachment, psychiatric symptoms, religious coping, and life satisfaction. Multivariate linear regression was also performed. The +R/S group had significantly higher religious coping and lower attachment insecurity, depression severity, and social anxiety. Attachment insecurity was associated with negative religious coping. Higher attachment avoidance was associated with lower life satisfaction and higher social anxiety. Many patients in psychiatric care hold R/S views and use religious coping. Their R/S beliefs and attachment characteristics might influence each other and impact their mental illness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".