Skip to main content

Table 3 Synthesis of the studies distributed according to similar instruments measuring S/R and QoL

From: Association between spirituality/religiousness and quality of life among healthy adults: a systematic review

Author/year /study design/country Objectives Methods Results Conclusions
Sample S/R and QoL instruments
Chai et al. (2012) [41]
Observational cross-sectional
New Zealand
To verify whether domestic and international students, with different ethnicities, adopt S/R coping strategies and how these affects QoL 679 college students
Female (495), Male (184)
Average age = 22.59 years old
Europeans x Asians:
SRPB = 24.79 and *26.85
Coping with stressors F(1.433) = *30.81, higher among Asian students
S/R predicts psychological domains among Asian students (β = *0.22)
↑ SRPB» ↑ ability to cope with stress;
↑ SRPB» ↑ psychological domains, social relationships, especially among Asian students when compared to European students
Hsu et al. (2009) [37]
Observational cross-sectional
New Zealand
To verify whether S/R is related with QoL and with coping mechanisms among domestic and international students 382 college students
Gender not reported
Average age = 23.78 years old
WHOQOL- bref
Domestic x international students:
SRPB = 24.01 and 26.92*
Correlations SRPB x psychological domain = *0.36 and *0.32
SRPB x social relation domains = 0.13 and *0.23
↑ SRPB» ↑ psychological domain in both groups; ↑ social relationships among internationals
↑ SRPB» ↑ social relationships among international students
Krageloh et al. [30] (2015)
Observational cross-sectional
New Zealand
To verify the effect of S/R and personal beliefs on the QoL of student affiliated with a religion or not 275 medical students
Female (156), Male (118)
Average age = 22.86 years old
WHOQOL- bref
General mean of the WHOOL-SRPB facets:
*14.35 (religious), 10.82 (non-religious)
↑ SRPB» ↑ General QoL
↑ hope, optimism, and meaning of life» ↑ psychological domain for all students
Deb and Strodl [29] (2018)
Observational cross-sectional
To verify association between S/R and QoL among graduate Indian students 475 graduate students
Female (234), Male (241)
Average age = 22.13
Most significant correlations:
NRCOPE x psychological domain = *0.60
NRCOPE x QV = *0.60
Most significant regressions:
All S/R measures with psychological domains (F = *35.10) and Environment (F = *25.04)
↑ E/R» ↑ psychological and environmental domains
↑ E/R» ↑ Total QoL, emphasis on the hope and high self-control facets
Felicilda-Reynaldo et al. (2019) [42]
Observational cross-sectional
To verify the predictive role of S/R on the QoL of nursing students from four countries 659 nursing students
Female (112), Male (547)
Average age = 21.14 years old
WHOQOL- bref
Linear regression S/R x QoL:
Organizational and non-organizational religiosity x physical domain (β = *0.98 and β = *0,99), physical domain (β = *0.98 and β = *0.99). Non religious coping x psychological domain (β = *0.98)
↑ Organizational and on non-organizational S/R» ↑ physical domain and environment
↑ Non-organizational S/R» ↑ psychological domain;
↑ Non-religious coping»↑ QoL in the 4 domains
Lau et al. (2015) [43]
Longitudinal observational
To verify the causal model in the relationship between spirituality and QoL during three years among college students 1160 college students
Female (787), Male (373)
Average age = 20.9 years old
Direct effects between the 1st and 3rd assessment of the STS in WHOQOL-brief (β = *0.130). The inverse did not occur (β = 0.098) Spirituality predicted QoL but not vice-versa, regardless of affiliation or gender
Pillay et al. (2016) [28]
Observational cross-sectional
South Africa
To assess the role of spirituality in the relationship with depressive symptoms and QoL among medical students 230 medical students
Average age = 21 years old
r de person SIBS x WHOQOL-brief = *0.294
SIBS x depression symptoms = * − 0.143
↓ S/R» ↑ depressive symptoms
↑ S/R» ↑ QoL
Casu et al. (2018) [38]
Observational cross-sectional
To verify how spirituality (S) is associated with stress and QoL among infertile couples 152 couples (n = 304)
Average age = 36.67 years old
Total effect of spirituality on QoL, B = * 0.55 ↑ S was positively associated with ↑ individual QoL
↑ S ↓ stress among infertile couples
DadkhahtehranI et al. (2018) [39]
Observational cross-sectional
To assess the association between religious coping and QoL among infertile individuals and their spouses 200 couples (n = 400)
Average age = 30.71 years old
Brief RCOPE scale;
Positive religious coping among the wives x QoL (β = *0.51), negative coping x QoL (β = * − 1.31). Positive coping among the husbands x QoL (β = *0.80) Personal beliefs positively influence QoL, but only individually among the wives; this effect was not found among their partners
Gonçalves et al. (2018) [40]
Observational cross-sectional
To investigate the relationship between S/R and mental health and QoL in a riverside community 129 individuals
Female (59), Male (70)
Average age = 36.6 years old
Linear regression S x anxiety (β = * − 0.236) and depression (β = * − 0.398). Non-organizational religiosity x anxiety (β = * − 0.250), x depression (β = * − 0.351). Intrinsic religiousness x depression (β = * − 0.315) ↑ S» ↓ anxiety and depression symptoms;
↑ non-organizational R and intrinsic R» ↓ anxiety and depression;
S/R measures were not associated with QoL
  1. DUREL (Duke University Religious Index), EWBS (Existential Well-Being Scale), FACIT-Sp (The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being Scale), MHLC (Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale), NRCOPE (Negative Religious Cope), RCOPE (Religious Coping Strategies), SAI (Spiritual Attitude Inventory) SIBS (Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale), SSRS (Spirituality Self Rating Scale), STS (Spiritual Transcendence Scale), SCS (Spiritual Coping Strategy Scale), SWBQ-G (Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire Germany), SWBS (Spiritual Well-Being Scale) WHOQOL-SRPB (World Health Organization Quality of LifeSpirituality, Religiousness and Personal Beliefs)
  2. (*): considered significant (p < 0.05 or < 0.01)
  3. (↑): Increase, (↓): decrease, (»): resulted/produced/meant