Private Religious or Spiritual Activities and its Impact on Life Satisfaction: A Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Life satisfaction is considered a valid population-based indicator of health and well-being. Recently, many advances in life satisfaction and well-being have been made by improving social and health policies. However, several countries continue to report low levels of life satisfaction, even among many modern industrialized nations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of private religious or spiritual activities (PRS) as a possible modifiable, individual-level factor to increase life satisfaction, with population-level health implications.Methods: The analytic sample included 9,627 respondents to the 2011-2012 Canadian Community Health Survey. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between self-reported PRS activities and life satisfaction, adjusted for confounders.Results: After adjusting for the confounders, daily PRS activities was associated with an increased odds of high satisfaction (AOR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.78) compared to low satisfaction. Engaging in weekly PRS activities was also associated with an increased odds of high satisfaction (AOR = AOR=1.33, 95% CI: 0.87, 2.02) compared to low satisfaction. Monthly engagement in PRS activities was not associated with increases in life satisfaction. Conclusions: There is a moderate association between the odds of high satisfaction and engaging in PRS activities on a daily or weekly basis. The variability in the CIs of the AORs indicates imprecision in the data; however, the majority of the possible range of effects are beneficial. Countries and other relevant organizations should be cognizant of the possible role that religious and spiritual values may have on life satisfaction, as another factor to explore further for population-level health benefits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".