Trial reportPloS one2019
Is religiousness really helpful to reduce depressive symptoms at old age? A longitudinal study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hope and Healing: Exploring the Effect of Physical Illness on Religiosity in a Longitudinal Sample of Americans.Journal of religion and health · 2025Article
- Religion and survival among European older adults.European journal of ageing · 2023Article
- Associations of the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism, 5-HTTLPR, and adverse life events with late life depression in the elderly Lithuanian population.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Are sex differences in self-estimated intelligence an elusive phenomenon? Exploring the role of working memory, creativity, and other psychological correlates in young and older adults.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Spirituality and religiousness as predictors of life satisfaction among Peruvian citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic.Heliyon · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigher levels of religiousness are associated with better mental health outcomes, but most of previous research is cross-sectional, failing to address issues of selection and reverse causation.
methodsWe assessed the longitudinal association between both public and private religiousness and depressive symptoms, drawing on data from 7,719 persons aged 65 and older of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Repeated measurements of different aspects of religiousness and depressive symptoms were used in random and fixed-effects models in order to assess the effect of changes in religious behavior on changes in depressive symptoms.
resultsPraying more than once a day was associated with more depressive symptoms (β = 0.150, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.298) relative to individuals who never pray, adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics, physical health covariates and history of depression, but the comparison with the fixed effects model suggests that this is the result of a selection effect. Participating weekly or more in a religious organization was associated with fewer depressive symptoms (β = -0.219, 95% CI: -0.344, -0.094), but this appeared to be spurious after taking due account of possible confounders (β = -0.092, 95% CI: -0.223, 0.038). Focusing on within-persons changes, we found that participating in religious organizations weekly or more was associated with more depressive symptoms (β = 0.275, 95% CI: 0.075, 0.475).
conclusionOur findings do not support that religious behavior, both public or private, may be beneficial for the mental health of older Europeans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.