Religiously/Spiritually Involved, but in Doubt or Disbelief-Why? Healthy?

A cross-national analysis of demographic variation in belief in God, gods, or spiritual forces in 22 countries

Although prior research documents the importance of belief in God (e.g., for health and well-being), most of the research has focused on Western samples. Much less is known about how belief in one God, multiple gods, or spiritual forces ("Belief in God") differs across cultures and demographic groups within those cultures. Using a diverse and international dataset of over 200,000 individuals from 22 countries, we examined the proportions of Belief in God across key demographics, focusing on country, age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status. Being mindful of interpretative challenges due to varying cultural contexts and the nature of the response items used, we offer insight into country-specific variations in Belief in God and lay a foundation for future investigations into sociocultural influences that might shape-or be shaped by-belief (or non-belief) in God, gods, and spiritual forces.

In Doubt and Disbelief: How Mrdjenovich 2018 Misunderstands the (Non)Religion-Health Relationship

The article, "Religiously/Spiritually Involved, but in Doubt or Disbelief-Why? Healthy?" (Mrdjenovich in J Relig Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-018-0711-2 , 2018) addressed why subsets of Nones would engage in religious activities. While the subject matter of Mrdjenovich's work is important and understudied, several problematic conclusions about the nonreligion-health field were drawn. We provide constructive criticisms of Mrdjenovich's methodologies, conclusions, and characterizations of the nonreligion-health field, and offer several solutions to the problems identified.

Nursing, Diabetes, Hemodialysis and COVID-19

Four key themes are explored in this third issue of the Journal of Religion and Health for 2022: (1) the lead topic for this issue considers the work and spiritual care provided by nurses, which is followed by a series of articles on the subject areas of (2) diabetes and (3) hemodialysis. Then, like previous issues, we again consider (4) research exploring the effects of COVID-19. Finally, this issue presents a miscellaneous collection of articles with respect to various faith dynamics and the findings from several national surveys.

Fishing in a Puddle of Doubt and Disbelief?: A Rejoinder to the Speed et al. Commentary

In the article "Religiously/Spiritually Involved, but in Doubt or Disbelief-Why? Healthy?", Mrdjenovich (in J Relig Health  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-018-0711-2 , 2018) explored the practices of religious attendance and prayer among atheists and agnostic theists. Speed et al. (in J Relig Health https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-020-01109-1 , 2020) offered a commentary regarding Mrdjenovich's (2018) article with attention to moderators of associations between religious/spiritual constructs and health outcomes. In this rejoinder, I review Speed et al.'s (2020) commentary and I identify a number of concerns, both with their observations and ostensive oversights involving qualitative research methodology, the utility of survey data, the domain of belief, and the impact of calls for a pluralistic approach in the religion-heath research field. I conclude that Mrdjenovich does not misunderstand mechanisms of the (non)religion-health relationship as much as Speed et al. seem to misinterpret Mrdjenovich's (2018) purpose, perspective, and default position on the issues. I reiterate that a concerted effort is required to study health outcomes among religious minorities.

Existential uncertainty in health care: A concept analysis

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

According to an influential taxonomy of varieties of uncertainty in health care, existential uncertainty is a key aspect of uncertainty for patients. Although the term "existential uncertainty" appears across a number of disciplines in the research literature, its use is diffuse and inconsistent. To date there has not been a systematic attempt to define it. The aim of this study is to generate a theoretically-informed conceptualisation of existential uncertainty within the context of an established taxonomy.

METHOD

Existential uncertainty was subjected to a concept analysis, which drew on existing uses of the term across multiple disciplines as well as insights from uncertainty theory more broadly and from the existential therapy literature to generate a tentative definition of the concept. Antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of existential uncertainty were also identified. A model case was described as well as a borderline case and a related case in order to illustrate and delineate the concept.

RESULTS

Existential uncertainty is conceptualised as an awareness of the undetermined but finite nature of one's own being-in-the-world, concerned primarily with identity, meaning, and choice. This awareness is fundamental and ineradicable, and manifests at different levels of consciousness.

CONCLUSION

Humans rely on identity, worldview, and a sense of meaning in life as ways of managing the ineradicable uncertainty of our being-in-the-world, and these can be challenged by a serious diagnosis. It is important that medical professionals acknowledge issues around existential uncertainty as well as issues around scientific uncertainty, and recognise when patients might be struggling with these. Further research is required to identify ways of measuring existential uncertainty and to develop appropriate interventions, but it is hoped that this conceptualisation provides a useful first step towards that goal.

Authors Disclosing Their Theistic Orientation in Journal Articles on Religion and Health? Infrequent, Informal, and Mostly Inconsistent with Conflict of Interest

An international survey was conducted of authors (N = 288) in the religion-health (R-H) research field concerning the disclosure of their theistic orientation (T-O) (i.e., whether they believe in God[s], a Higher Power, or a universal spirit) in their journal articles. Most (74%) of the respondents said they never disclose their T-O in this context; e.g., because they feel the information is private (20%), irrelevant (36%), unimportant (56%), and/or likely to make them appear less credible (36%). Atheists were four times less likely than deists and gnostic theists were to disclose their T-O; authors who conducted experimental research and published more frequently were also less likely to disclose their T-O. When disclosure did occur, it was more likely to take place informally within the narrative of manuscripts. Most (66%) of the respondents did not view their T-O as a competing interest (CI). Agnostic theism and the absence of theistic belief were less likely to be experienced as CIs than gnostic theism, deism, and atheism were. The respondents predominantly disagreed both that T-O should be characterized as a CI (48%) and that authors in the R-H field should disclose their T-O as such (59%). Only 18% of the authors in this study who did perceive their T-O as a CI reported that they formally disclose that information to journals or publishers, while the majority (59%) of those authors said they never disclose the information in this context at all. The discussion focuses on reasons as to why authors might choose not to do so. Recommendations are offered for the R-H field.