Religious Affiliations Influence Health-Related and General Decision Making: A Brazilian Nationwide Survey.

Approximately 90% of the world's population is involved in some spiritual/religious practice, and this dimension has a relevant role in life. Many studies demonstrate the associations between spirituality/religiosity (S/R), and physical, mental, and social health. Systematic reviews have indicated positive associations; however, the mechanisms behind religious coping are not fully understood. The present study aimed to examine the role of religious affiliation in general (ordinary) and health-related decisions. A nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study was conducted in Brazil using a self-administered online survey. How much religious affiliation influences decision making was investigated. A total of 1133 participants were included, who were classified as Catholics (43.9%), Evangelicals (18.7%), spiritualists (12.8%), non-religious (11.9%), and others (12.7%). Most participants (66.5%) believed that their religious affiliations had moderate to high influences on their decisions. Participants rated the influence as high in marriage (62.7%), in donations (60.1%), in volunteering (55%), in friendships (53.9%), and in work (50.5%). Concerning health-related decisions, the influence was rated as high in drug use (45.2%), in accepting medical recommendations (45%), and in smoking (43.2%). The influence of religious affiliation on general decision making was significantly correlated for dietary restrictions (r = 0.462), alcohol consumption (r = 0.458), drug use (r = 0.441), tobacco consumption (r = 0.456), and refusal of medical recommendations (r = 0.314). Improving the understanding of how a patient's beliefs, practices, and experiences affect their health may help healthcare practitioners to take into account religious considerations, not only regarding influences on habits but also regarding adherence to medical treatment advice.

Patterns of religiosity and spirituality of psychiatrists in Brazil and the implications for clinical practice: a latent profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although there is consensus, in psychiatry, over the inclusion of religious and spiritual aspects when evaluating and treating the patient, investigation of these dimensions is rare. There is evidence as to the relationship between psychiatrists' religious/spiritual beliefs and their willingness to discuss a patient's religion and spirituality (R/S). Due to the lack of information about how psychiatrists in Brazil deal with R/S in patient care, the aim of the present study is to analyze the religious/spiritual profile of these professionals and to ascertain its influence on attitudes and behavior in clinical practice. METHODS: Five hundred and ninety-two psychiatrists from Brazil answered a questionnaire about R/S in clinical practice. The latent profile analysis was used to search for differences of religious/spiritual profiles. The ANOVA and Pearson's chi-square tests were employed to identify any correlation between clinical opinion and behaviors according to the different profiles. RESULTS: Two religious/spiritual profiles were identified (entropy value > 0,96): the so called "less religious" group (n = 245), comprised predominantly by men, professionally more experienced, with a higher level of academic education (Master or PhD degrees) and were the ones who least enquired about their patients' R/S; and the "more religious" psychiatrists (n = 347) those who had higher consideration for R/S on health, and who more often addressed R/S with their patients and therefore usually ascribed importance to include R/S in their professional training. CONCLUSION: The latent profile analysis produced two distinct classes between the Brazilian psychiatrists according to their R/S views: the more religious professionals, who investigate the patient's R/S in a more detailed manner, and the less religious, who tend to disregard this aspect.

How psychiatrists think about religious and spiritual beliefs in clinical practice: findings from a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil

Objective: To examine the relationship between psychiatrists' religious/spiritual beliefs and their attitudes regarding religion and spirituality in clinical practice. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of religion/spirituality (R/S) in clinical practice was conducted with 121 psychiatrists from the largest academic hospital complex in Brazil. Results: When asked about their R/S beliefs, participants were more likely to consider themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A total of 64.2% considered their religious beliefs to influence their clinical practice and 50% reported that they frequently enquired about their patients' R/S. The most common barriers to approaching patients' religiosity were: lack of time (27.4%), fear of exceeding the role of the doctor (25%), and lack of training (19.1%). Those who were less religious or spiritual were also less likely to find difficulties in addressing a patient's R/S. Conclusion: Differences in psychiatrists' religious and spiritual beliefs are associated with different attitudes concerning their approach to R/S. The results suggest that medical practice may lead to a religious conflict among devout psychiatrists, making them question their faith. Training might be of importance for handling R/S in clinical practice and for raising awareness about potential evaluative biases in the assessment of patients' religiosity.

How psychiatrists think about religious and spiritual beliefs in clinical practice: findings from a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between psychiatrists' religious/spiritual beliefs and their attitudes regarding religion and spirituality in clinical practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of religion/spirituality (R/S) in clinical practice was conducted with 121 psychiatrists from the largest academic hospital complex in Brazil. RESULTS: When asked about their R/S beliefs, participants were more likely to consider themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A total of 64.2% considered their religious beliefs to influence their clinical practice and 50% reported that they frequently enquired about their patients' R/S. The most common barriers to approaching patients' religiosity were: lack of time (27.4%), fear of exceeding the role of the doctor (25%), and lack of training (19.1%). Those who were less religious or spiritual were also less likely to find difficulties in addressing a patient's R/S. CONCLUSION: Differences in psychiatrists' religious and spiritual beliefs are associated with different attitudes concerning their approach to R/S. The results suggest that medical practice may lead to a religious conflict among devout psychiatrists, making them question their faith. Training might be of importance for handling R/S in clinical practice and for raising awareness about potential evaluative biases in the assessment of patients' religiosity.

A preliminary survey on the religious profile of Brazilian psychiatrists and their approach to patients' religiosity in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Although there is evidence of a relationship between religion/spirituality and mental health, it remains unclear how Brazilian psychiatrists deal with the religion/spirituality of their patients. AIMS: To explore whether Brazilian psychiatrists enquire about religion/spirituality in their practice and whether their own beliefs influence their work. METHOD: Four hundred and eighty-four Brazilian psychiatrists completed a cross-sectional survey on religion/spirituality and clinical practice. RESULTS: Most psychiatrists had a religious affiliation (67.4%) but more than half of the 484 participants (55.5%) did not usually enquire about patients' religion/spirituality. The most common reasons for not assessing patients' religion/spirituality were 'being afraid of exceeding the role of a doctor' (30.2%) and 'lack of training' (22.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Very religious/spiritual psychiatrists were the most likely to ask about their patients' religion/spirituality. Training in how to deal with a patient's religiosity might help psychiatrists to develop better patient rapport and may contribute to the patient's quicker recovery. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

Validation of the Duke Religion Index: DUREL (Portuguese version).

The purpose of the current study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Duke Religion Index (PDUREL) in a community setting. PDUREL was translated and adapted for administration to 383 individuals from a population-based study of low-income community-dwelling adults. The PDUREL intrinsic subscale and total scores demonstrated high internal consistency (alphas ranging from 0.733 for the total scale score to 0.758 for the intrinsic subscale). Correlations among the DUREL subscales were also examined for evidence of discriminant validity. Correlations were ranging from 0.36 to 0.46, indicating significant overlap between the scales without marked redundancy. PDUREL is a reliable and valid scale. The availability of a comprehensive, but brief measure of religiousness can help to study the role of religiousness in health by researchers from countries that speak the Portuguese language.