Religious affiliation and suicidality among college students in China: A cross-sectional study across six provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several past studies indicated that religious beliefs, orientation, and practice are protective of suicide. Findings from recent studies in China suggest that religiosity may contribute to increased suicidality. However, few studies have examined the associations between religious affiliation across different faiths and suicidality in China.The current study examines the association between religious affiliation and suicidality among college students in six provinces in China.We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 11,407 college students from six universities in Ningxia, Shandong, Shanghai, Jilin, Qinghai, and Shaanxi. We collected the data between October 2017 and March 2018 using self-report questionnaires. They included self-report measures of depression, psychache, hopelessness, self-esteem, social support, and life purpose.Participants with a Christian affiliation had 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.14, 1.99, p = 0.004) higher odds of indicating an elevated suicide risk, 3.1 times (95% CI: 1.90, 5.04, p<0.001) higher odds of indicating a previous suicide attempt, and increased overall suicidality (B = 0.105, p < 0.001) after accounting for demographic and risk/protective factors. Christians also scored the highest in depression, psychache, hopelessness, and the lowest social support, self-esteem, and purpose in life. Muslims reported decreased suicidality (B = -0.034, p = 0.031). Buddhism/Daoism yielded non-significant results in the multivariate analyses.Christian college students reported increased suicidality levels, perhaps due to public policies on religion. The decreased suicidality levels among Muslims may be attributed to higher perceived social support. The associations between religious affiliation and suicidality, depression, and hopelessness contrast sharply with US samples. This finding may be influenced by interactions between the religious denomination, individual, and social/political factors. This conclusion includes the possibility of anti-religious discrimination, which this paper did not investigate as a possible mediator and therefore remains a conjecture worthy of future investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".