Religion/Spirituality, Mental Health, and the Lifespan: Findings from a Representative Sample of Canadian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theories of adult development and aging suggest that older adults turn towards religion and spirituality (R/S) to increase meaning and purpose in life, and to assist in coping with adverse experience. We sought to examine the relationship between R/S and positive mental health and mental illness (i.e., psychological distress) in adulthood, and to determine the potential moderating role of age. Data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health (CCHS-MH), a national population health study, were used. A multivariable linear regression model revealed a significant R/S by age interaction for positive mental health (p = 0.001). Although R/S was associated with positive mental health among all participants, there was a stronger relationship between R/S and positive mental health for older adults. No statistically significant relationship between R/S and psychological distress was observed. Findings highlight the importance of R/S to positive mental health across the adult lifespan. The differential relationships among R/S, positive mental health, and mental illness underscore the utility of using the dual-continua of mental health and mental illness in order to understand their respective determinants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".