ArticleJournal of religion and health2019
Religiously/Spiritually Involved, but in Doubt or Disbelief-Why? Healthy?
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cross-national analysis of demographic variation in belief in God, gods, or spiritual forces in 22 countries.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An integrative review of defining characteristic of the nursing diagnosis "spiritual distress".Nursing open · 2023Review
- In Doubt and Disbelief: How Mrdjenovich 2018 Misunderstands the (Non)Religion-Health Relationship.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
- Fishing in a Puddle of Doubt and Disbelief?: A Rejoinder to the Speed et al. Commentary.Journal of religion and health · 2022Review
- Authors Disclosing Their Theistic Orientation in Journal Articles on Religion and Health? Infrequent, Informal, and Mostly Inconsistent with Conflict of Interest.Journal of religion and health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The question of why atheists and agnostic theists attend religious services and pray (and what that might mean for their health) is examined through (1) a thematic analysis of commentaries, perspective pieces, and news articles from the popular literature, and (2) a critical review of scholarly research involving comparisons between religious and nonreligious individuals on a variety of health-related outcomes. Findings suggest that atheists and agnostic theists can take pleasure in attending religious services, and they may be driven to pray at times. In many cases, this was explained by their efforts to stay connected and avoid or manage conflict with family members. Despite a pattern of friction between nonbelievers and believers across the dataset, they predominantly agreed on the whys and wherefores of religious service attendance and the prospect that congregants could "bridge the worlds of belief and nonbelief." The themes identified are intended to inform the development of qualitative interview protocols and survey instruments. Although health was not among the most salient themes in the narratives analyzed here, many of the reasons cited for religious service attendance and prayer can be tied to existing literature that has relevance for health. Atheists who experience dissonance between their self-perception and nonbelief in God-and agnostic theists who are prone to existential uncertainty and have only moderate faith-might experience poorer health outcomes. Recommendations focus on the need to (a) supplement secondary analyses of archival survey data with qualitative descriptions of belief systems within groups, and (b) move away from the adversarial stance taken by some of the authors of recently published studies on atheism, nonreligion, and health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30291533What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.