Bann and Aksoy Respond to "Religious Service Attendance and Public Health".
Bann and Aksoy Respond to "Religious Service Attendance and Public Health".
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwab135
复制
发表时间：
2022-01-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Aksoy O
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bann D;Aksoy O
估计宗教信仰对健康的因果影响是具有挑战性的。即使是参加礼拜，正如VanderWeele等人(1)优雅地总结的那样，证据是最有力的，“暴露”本身及其可能的影响在宗教传统之间和内部是巨大不同的。通过上下文横断面分析，特定类型的出席的影响在方向和程度上也可能不同，尽管如此，关联似乎从中国的负面到美国的特别积极(2)。先前的研究结果（1,3）确实表明，在特定情况下，对某些健康结果的有益影响也应谨慎解释：过去可能发生的情况并不一定决定未来可能或确实应该发生的情况。对过去关于这一主题的工作的一些尖刻的反应（4-6）可能突出了关于宗教机构给个人和社会带来的净利益的两极分化观点（7,8）。然而，参加礼拜与健康之间的紧密联系可能对宗教和世俗社会都有影响。这种更广泛的功利主义立场可以弥合对立的观点，并在病因学和翻译方面取得最丰硕的成果。在之前的讨论(9)的基础上，我们提出了两组问题，可以帮助这种理解。假设存在因果关系，为什么参加宗教仪式对健康有益？出席的哪些因素是最有益的？这些元素如何转移到其他领域？解决这些问题不仅将提高早期发现的因果可信度，而且还有助于提高对干预或政策的推论的可转移性。这也有助于将这种“风险敞口”纳入更广泛的环境，而不是VanderWeele等人讨论的以美国为中心的背景。例如，在参加宗教活动可能会招致排斥或敌意的地方（10），如果促进非宗教社区的参与，人口福利也可以得到类似的改善。鉴于几乎在全球范围内观察到的日益世俗化，这种替代方法也很重要（11,12）。调查新出现的世俗替代方案（例如，周日大会）
Estimating the causal effect of religiosity on health is challenging. Even for service attendance, for which evidence is strongest as VanderWeele et al (1) elegantly summarize, the “exposure” itself and likely its effects are enormously varied across and within religious traditions. An effect of a given type of attendance may also differ in direction and magnitude by context—cross-sectional analysis notwithstanding, associations seemingly range from negative in China to particularly positive in the United States (2). Prior findings (1, 3) that do suggest, in a given context, beneficial effects on certain health outcomes should also be interpreted with caution: What may have been the case in the past does not necessarily determine what could or indeed should be the case in the future. The somewhat acerbic reactions to past work on this topic (4–6) perhaps highlight the polarizing views on the net benefit to individuals and society that religious institutions bring (7, 8). A robust link between service attendance and health could, however, have implications for both religious and secular societies. This broader utilitarian ground may bridge opposing views and be most fruitful in terms of etiology and translation. Building on prior discussion (9), we pose 2 sets of questions that could aid such understanding.Assuming a causal link exists, why is religious service attendance beneficial for health? What elements of attendance are most beneficial? How can those elements be transferred to other domains? Addressing these questions will not only improve the causal credibility of earlier findings but also help to improve the transferability of inferences to intervention or policy. It would also help to incorporate such “exposures” in broader environments than the US-focused context discussed by VanderWeele et al. For instance, where religious attendance may attract ostracization or hostility (10), population wellbeing could be similarly improved if nonreligious community participation is facilitated. Such alternatives will also be important given the increasing secularization observed nearly globally (11, 12). Investigating emerging secular alternatives (eg, the Sunday Assembly)
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5
作者：
VanderWeele TJ;Balboni TA;Koh HK
通讯作者：
Koh HK
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Stolz, Joerg
通讯作者：
Stolz, Joerg
影响因子：
5
作者：
Aksoy O;Bann D;Fluharty ME;Nandi A
通讯作者：
Nandi A
DOI：
10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.11.006
发表时间：
2018-11-15
期刊：
SSM - Population Health
影响因子：
--
作者：
Zimmer Z;Rojo F;Ofstedal MB;Chiu CT;Saito Y;Jagger C
通讯作者：
Jagger C
影响因子：
8.9
作者：
Jebb, S. A.;Aveyard, P. N.;Hawkes, C.
通讯作者：
Hawkes, C.