CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyCardiac Health and Mental HealthReligion and Society Interactions

The relationship between religion and cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in the women's health initiative observational study

Schnall, Eliezer, Wassertheil-Smoller, Sylvia, Swencionis, Charles, Zemon, Vance, Tinker, Lesley, O'Sullivan, Mary Jo, Van Horn, Linda, Goodwin, Mimi·2010·Psychology & Health
DOI 10.1080/08870440802311322
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Some studies suggest that religiosity may be related to health outcomes. The current investigation, involving 92,395 Women's Health Initiative Observational Study participants, examined the prospective association of religious affiliation, religious service attendance, and strength and comfort from religion with subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and death. Baseline characteristics and responses to religiosity questions were collected at enrollment. Women were followed for an average of 7.7 years and outcomes were judged by physician adjudicators. Cox proportional regression models were run to obtain hazard ratios (HR) of religiosity variables and coronary heart disease (CHD) and death. After controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and prior health variables, self-report of religious affiliation, frequent religious service attendance, and religious strength and comfort were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality [HR for religious affiliation = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.93] [HR for service attendance = 0.80; CI: 0.73-0.87] [HR for strength and comfort = 0.89; CI: 0.82-0.98]. However, these religion-related variables were not associated with reduced risk of CHD morbidity and mortality. In fact, self-report of religiosity was associated with increased risk of this outcome in some models. In conclusion, although self-report measures of religiosity were not associated with reduced risk of CHD morbidity and mortality, these measures were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870440802311322

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Of the 13 most rigorous CHD studies, nine (69%) found inverse relationships with CHD and one found a positive one.

    “Of the 13 studies with the most rigorous methodology, nine (69%) found inverse relationships with CHD [357–365] and one found a positive one [366].”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [360]

  • Of the 20 methodologically most rigorous studies, 12 (60%) found an association between R/S and lower risk or better outcomes.

    “Of the 20 methodologically most rigorous studies, 12 (60%) found an association between R/S and lower risk or better outcomes [469–480], and none reported worse risk or outcomes.”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [471]

  • Considering the 63 methodologically most rigorous studies (quality ratings of 8 or higher), 47 (75%) found R/S predicting greater longevity (two at trend level).

    “Considering the 63 methodologically most rigorous studies (quality ratings of 8 or higher), 47 (75%) found R/S predicting greater longevity (two at trend level) [548–566], whereas three (5%) reported shorter longevity [567–569].”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [556]

  • In the WHI and MESA cohorts, point estimates showed a higher risk of CVD among the more religiously involved.

    “In both the WHI and MESA cohorts, point estimates actually showed a higher risk of CVD among the more religiously involved.”

    From Advancing our understanding of religion and spirituality in the context of behavioral medicine (2017) · cites this paper as Schnall et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schnall, E., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Swencionis, C., Zemon, V., Tinker, L., O'Sullivan, M. J., Van Horn, L., & Goodwin, M.
Affiliations
  • Yeshiva University (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Schnall, Eliezer
ORCID
Venue
Psychology & Health
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-02
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
249-263
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
DOI
10.1080/08870440802311322
OpenAlex
W2162283541
Cited by
139
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
Keywords
religiosity, religious affiliation, religious service attendance, cardiovascular outcomes, coronary artery disease, all-cause mortality, women's health, Women's Health Initiative Observational Study
MeSH terms
Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cause of Death, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Religion and Medicine, United States, Health Behavior, Proportional Hazards Models, Women's Health, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Observation

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