Perceived Stress and Religious Coping in Morbidly Obese People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess religious/spiritual coping in morbidly obese people and to correlate its relation to Perceived Stress. METHOD: Cross-sectional, non-experimental, quantitative study, with collection carried out between September 2020 and July 2021. The analyzes were based on absolute and relative frequency, central tendency, Shapiro-Wilk normality test and Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: We obtained 41 participants, 29.27% men and 70.73% women. Utilization scores were high for Religious and Spiritual Coping Scale (SRCOPE), Total SRCOPE (TSRCOPE) (M = 3.6, SD = 0.4), medium for Positive SRCOPE (PSRCOPE) (M = 3.1, SD = 0.7) and low use of Negative SRCOPE (NSRCOPE) (M = 1.9, SD = 0.6). The correlation between the 14 questions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the SRCOPE showed a positive association between TSRCOPE, PSRCOPE (p = 0.031 and r = 0.337) and NSRCOPE (p = 0.002 and r = 0.477), indicating that morbidly obese people believe in positive or negative influence of spirituality and religiosity in their lives. The correlations between factors PSRCOPE 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 with the PSS items showed significant associations in practically all questions, especially in PSRCOPE 1, suggesting that participants use their religiosity and spirituality in coping everyday life. CONCLUSION: Stress, whether chronic or acute, plays an important role in the maintenance of morbid obesity and the strategy of spiritual religious coping can be appropriate and beneficial to the population in question. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies with a more robust sample are needed in order to obtain generalized data for the entire Brazilian population.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".