CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyCancer survivorship and careWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta‐analytic approach to examining the correlation between religion/spirituality and mental health in cancer

Open access
Salsman, John M., Pustejovsky, James E., Jim, Heather S. L., Munoz, Alexis R., Merluzzi, Thomas V., George, Login, Park, Crystal L., Danhauer, Suzanne C., Sherman, Allen C., Snyder, Mallory A., Fitchett, George·2015·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.29350PMC PMC4618157
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Religion and spirituality (R/S) are patient‐centered factors and often are resources for managing the emotional sequelae of the cancer experience. Studies investigating the correlation between R/S (eg, beliefs, experiences, coping) and mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, well being) in cancer have used very heterogeneous measures and have produced correspondingly inconsistent results. A meaningful synthesis of these findings has been lacking; thus, the objective of this review was to conduct a meta‐analysis of the research on R/S and mental health. Four electronic databases were systematically reviewed, and 2073 abstracts met initial selection criteria. Reviewer pairs applied standardized coding schemes to extract indices of the correlation between R/S and mental health. In total, 617 effect sizes from 148 eligible studies were synthesized using meta‐analytic generalized estimating equations, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine moderators of effects. The estimated mean correlation (Fisher z) was 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16‐0.23), which varied as a function of R/S dimensions: affective R/S (z = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33‐0.43), behavioral R/S (z = 0.03; 95% CI, −0.02‐0.08), cognitive R/S (z = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06‐0.14), and ‘other’ R/S (z = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03‐0.13). Aggregate, study‐level demographic and clinical factors were not predictive of the relation between R/S and mental health. There was little indication of publication or reporting biases. The correlation between R/S and mental health generally was positive. The strength of that correlation was modest and varied as a function of the R/S dimensions and mental health domains assessed. The identification of optimal R/S measures and more sophisticated methodological approaches are needed to advance research. Cancer 2015;121:3769–3778. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.29350

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1002/0470870168.ch1 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Stanton AL, 2006, Handbook of Post‐Traumatic Growth: Research and Practice, 138
  3. 10.1375/twin.2.2.126 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 231

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Salsman, J. M., Pustejovsky, J. E., Jim, H. S. L., Munoz, A. R., Merluzzi, T. V., George, L., Park, C. L., Danhauer, S. C., Sherman, A. C., Snyder, M. A., & Fitchett, G.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Salsman, John M.
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-10
Volume
121
Issue
21
Pages
3769-3778
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.29350
PMC
PMC4618157
OpenAlex
W2127587946
Cited by
232
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K07CA158008)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
religion and spirituality, mental health, cancer patients, depression, anxiety, well-being, coping
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Religion and Medicine, Stress, Psychological, Prevalence, Spirituality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review