ArticleHeliyon2024
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on communal religious worshippers' mental health and the benefits of positive religious coping.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the Landscape of Religious Coping: Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Theocentric and Non-Theocentric Practices.Journal of religion and health · 2026Review
- Religious affiliation and perceptions of healthcare access during and after COVID-19 in Poland.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In the United Kingdom, onsite religious services were halted during COVID-19 lockdowns, which were followed by various levels of restrictions on communal worship including social distancing, mandatory wearing of face masks, adequate ventilation and a ban on congregational singing and chanting. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of closures and changes within places of worship in response to the first lockdown in 2020, to assess the effect of the pandemic on religious practice and worshippers' wellbeing and religious coping. Methods: Participants were regular worshippers in the UK, recruited through an online survey using convenience sampling. Respondents were asked about their attitudes to changes to places of worship in the UK and their wellbeing and mental health, including assessment of their risk of depression and anxiety using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) measures. Questionnaires were completed August to November 2020. Findings: 939 participants were included in the analysis. Median age was 52.7 years and 66.1 % were female. 80.7 % identified as Christian. 165 (19.3 %) had mild, 45 (5.3 %) moderate, 25 (2.9 %) moderately severe and 10 (1.2 %) severe depression, and 192 (22.5 %) had mild, 55 (6.4 %) moderate and 27 (3.2 %) severe anxiety, according to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, respectively. Nearly half (46.4 %) reported that their mood and anxiety levels had worsened and 16.6 % reported that they felt the things they were doing in their lives were not worthwhile. The vast majority of respondents (92.7 %) reported that prayer had helped them cope with the way they had felt during lockdown: 29.2 % and 47.0 % reported that it helped moderately and a great deal, respectively. This 76.2 % had significantly lower levels of moderate/severe depression and anxiety (adjusted odds ratio: depression 0.37 (95%CI 0.22-0.63), anxiety 0.52 (95%CI 0.31-0.88). Interpretation: Our study demonstrates the significant impact of COVID-19 on communal worshippers' mental health and reinforces the benefits of positive religious coping during the first UK lockdown. Barriers to communal worship participation during lockdowns, including access to appropriate technology, need to be recognised and facilitators identified.
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.