MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6989417665

The Association between Religious Participation and Social Isolation in Canadian Middle-and Older-aged Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2022· dissertation· en· W6989417665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial isolationLongitudinal studySocial engagementMarital statusLogistic regressionCohortCohort studySocial supportAssociation (psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social isolation is a modifiable risk factor for poor health outcomes, including cognitive decline, cardiovascular disease, and mental illness. Thus, researchers seek to identify exposures that are inversely associated with social isolation itself. Religious participation may be one such exposure because research has shown it to be positively associated with social support and social integration, two concepts related to decreases in social isolation. However, the association between religious participation and social isolation has not been investigated in depth. The objective of this thesis was to examine the association between religious participation and social isolation using baseline and three-year follow-up data from the Comprehensive Cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). The CLSA is an ongoing prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults who were between 45 and 85 years old at recruitment. \nReligious participation was measured via a single question, asking participants how often they participated in religious activities over the past 12 months (e.g., services, committees, choirs). Responses were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from “at least once a day” to “never”, which served as the reference category in regression modeling. Social isolation was measured with an index computed by Menec et al., which tabulated the absence of social interactions, relationships, and a lack of participation in community activities, as well as included retirement status and marital status. Social isolation index scores ranged from 0 to 5 and were dichotomized into “socially isolated” or “not socially isolated”. Multiple logistic regression was used for the analysis. Follow-up social isolation index scores were regressed onto baseline religious participation responses while controlling for baseline social isolation, sociodemographic variables, health variables, and functional social support. The fully adjusted model was stratified by age groups and sex separately. \n\tThe analytical sample comprised 22,139 participants. Approximately 50% of participants participated in religious activities at least once a year. At baseline, 7% of participants were socially isolated, and 6% were socially isolated at follow-up. \n\tRegression models indicated small and inverse associations between religious participation and social isolation over three years; however, none of the results were statistically significant (α = 0.05), thereby suggesting the possibility of positive associations. The results did not identify any effect modification by age groups and sex. \n\tMost CLSA participants were not socially isolated, which contributed to the non-significant and small associations between religious participation and social isolation. Longer follow-ups of the CLSA sample and a larger proportion of socially isolated individuals are needed to assess this association further.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→