You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health: findings from a British birth cohort study
  1. Aradhna Kaushal1,
  2. Mai Stafford2,
  3. Dorina Cadar1,
  4. Marcus Richards3
  1. 1 Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2 The Health Foundation, London, UK
  3. 3 MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aradhna Kaushal, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK; aradhna.kaushal.14{at}ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

Background There is evidence that religious attendance is associated with positive outcomes for mental health; however, there are few longitudinal studies, and even fewer, which take into account the possibility of bi-directional associations. This study aimed to investigate bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health.

Methods Participants were 2125 study members who provided data at age 68–69 from the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development (1946 British birth cohort study). Mental health was assessed using the 28-item General Health Questionnaire at ages 53, 60–64 and 68–69. Religious attendance was measured using a 4-point scale (weekly=3, monthly=2, less than monthly=1 or never=0) at ages 43, 60–64 and 68–69. Cross-lagged path analysis was used to assess reciprocal associations between mental health and religious attendance, adjusting for gender and education.

Results Previous religious attendance was strongly related to later attendance (r=0.62–0.74). Similarly, mental health at baseline was strongly associated with subsequent mental health scores (r=0.46–0.54). Poor mental health at age 53 and 60–64 was associated with more frequent religious attendance at age 60–64 (b=0.04; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05), and 68–69 (b=0.03; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05), respectively. There was no evidence that religious attendance at age 43, 60–64 or 68–69 was associated with later or concurrent mental health.

Conclusion Using birth cohort data from the UK, it was found that poor mental health was associated with later religious attendance but not vice versa. Future research should confirm these novel findings and explore the underlying mechanisms between religious attendance and mental health.

  • mental health
  • epidemiology of ageing
  • longitudinal studies
  • cohort studies
  • aging

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data sharing is dependent on the approval by the NSHD Data Sharing Committee, a data-sharing agreement being in place between UCL and the academic institution that employs the researcher, and LHA resources being available to meet the requests for data sharing. Metadata can be browsed on Skylark: https://skylark/ucl.ac.uk/Skylark.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216943

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Background

    Depression and anxiety affect one in five people in the UK and are an increasingly important public health priority.1 Experiencing mental health difficulties can be accompanied by personal suffering, stigma and difficulties engaging with society, as well as a lower likelihood of employment, greater likelihood of poor physical health and lower life expectancy.2 In England, mental health is estimated to cost around £22.5 billion a year in health services and £28 billion in lost earnings and these costs are expected to increase by 45% by 2026.3

    Several systematic reviews have found that religiosity, a term used to describe religious affiliation, beliefs, attendance at services and practices, has been associated with better mental health outcomes.4 5 A recent meta-analysis of 48 longitudinal studies built on these reviews by estimating the effect size of religiosity on mental health rather than the proportion of studies reporting a positive effect . The authors confirmed a positive effect of religiosity and spirituality on mental health, but found the total effect size was small (r=0.08).6 A limitation of these reviews is that due to the heterogeneity religiosity measures, it is difficult to know which aspects of religiosity are associated with mental health or account for the possibility that religious attendance and religious beliefs may impact health in different ways. A systematic review by Braam and Koenig focusing on 152 prospective studies found that just over half of the studies showed an inverse association between religiosity and depression, with the authors highlighting the need for research assessing the possibility of bi-directional associations.7 This review identified 12 studies that evaluated bi-directional associations, of which four studies suggest that depression is associated with a decrease in religion and spirituality with the remaining eight studies showing no association. Although most of the research on the associations between religiosity and mental health has been conducted in the USA, a recent study from the UK using household panel data suggest that religious attendance and beliefs are associated with subsequently better mental health and well-being.8

    To date, there have been no investigations of the potential bi-directional relationship between religious involvement and mental health in the UK. The aim of this study was to investigate bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health using data from the Medical Research Council (MRC) National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD), also known as the British 1946 birth cohort. Based on previous research, we predicted that religious attendance would be associated with better mental health and that poor mental health would be related to a decrease in religious attendance.

    Methods

    Design and participants

    The MRC NSHD is a nationally representative British birth cohort selected from all births in 1 week of March 1946 and stratified by father’s social class. Originally consisting of 5362 single births to married women in England, Wales and Scotland, it has been followed up 24 times to date. Details of the data collection and response rates have been previously described.9–11 We included study members who took part in the most recent data collection at age 68–69 (n=2148). Details of the study members excluded from the analysis are shown in figure 1.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Target samples and response to the postal questionnaire and the home visit at age 68–69 in National Survey of Health and Development. Figure adapted from Kuh et al. 9

    Mental health

    Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured by a self-completed questionnaire at ages 53, 60–64 and 68–69 using the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). The GHQ-28 contains four subscales; somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression.12 Each item was scored from 0 to 3, giving a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 84, with a higher score indicating higher psychological distress. The GHQ-28 had a skewed distribution in this sample and was log-transformed for use in the cross-lagged model.

    Religious attendance

    Frequency of religious attendance was assessed at ages 43, 60–64 and 68–69 by postal questionnaire. The phrasing of this question and response options varied slightly between waves; at 43, they were asked if they helped to run church activities or participate in religious services, and at 60–64 and 68–69 they were asked how often they participated in church-related groups or religious activities. Response options were harmonised across waves, so that religious participation was categorised as ‘weekly’, ‘monthly’, ‘less often’ and ‘never’.

    Covariables

    Models were adjusted for gender, and educational attainment as preliminary analysis showed these were confounding variables. Measures of social class were not included as these were not found to be associated with religious attendance above and beyond education (online supplemental table S1). Educational attainment was measured as the highest level of qualification obtained by age 26 based on the Burnham scale.13 This was grouped into no qualification, up to ordinary ('O') level (including vocational courses, sub General Certificate of Education (GCE)), advanced ('A') level or equivalent and higher (degree or higher).

    Supplemental material

    Statistical analysis

    An auto-regressive cross-lagged model was used to simultaneously assess reciprocal longitudinal associations between mental health and religious attendance over time using three-repeated measures for each of these variables (figure 2). This model can be used to test the direction of associations between two variables of interest with repeated measures. In this analysis, religious attendance reported at ages 43, 60–64 and 68–69 were analysed with mental health at ages 53, 60–64 and 68–69. The model was applied with equality constraints across waves (a=b and c=d) which is recommended if there is no loss of model fit (figure 2).14 Religious attendance (weekly=3, monthly=2, less than monthly=1 or never=0) and GHQ-28 score (0–84) were modelled as continuous variables. A sensitivity analysis modelling religious attendance as a categorical variable was conducted. Auto-correlations between religious attendance variables and mental health were calculated between all included waves of data collection.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Conceptual auto-regressive cross-lagged model based on the repeat measures of religious attendance and mental health (GHQ) at ages 43/53, 60–64 and 68–69 in National Survey of Health and Development. GHQ, General Health Questionnaire.

    The analysis was limited to participants who had complete data on GHQ-28 at age 68–69 (n=2125). Missing data on all other variables were addressed using full information maximum likelihood (FIML).15–17 The proportion of missing data for each variable is described in the online supplemental tables S2 and S3 along with analyses comparing GHQ-28 at age 68–69 between those with and without missing data by religious attendance at ages 43, 60–64 and 68–69.

    Results

    Participants

    Study members characteristics are presented in table 1. Approximately half of the participants were women, and one-third had no educational qualifications. The majority reported never attending religious services at all ages (82% at age 43, 81% at age 60–64 and 68% at age 68–69). There was a slight increase in the proportion of participants attending weekly and monthly at age 68–69 compared with ages 43 and 60–64.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Participant characteristics (n=2125)

    Associations between religious attendance and mental health

    Table 2 shows the auto correlations over time for GHQ and for religious attendance; both track strongly over time (p≤0.001).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Auto-correlation of measures of mental health and religious attendance across mid-life (n=2125)

    Figure 3 presents the results of the auto-regressive cross-lagged analysis between religious attendance and mental health at three time points. Double-headed arrows represent cross-sectional associations between variables measured at the same time. As shown by the auto-correlations in table 2, previous religious attendance was strongly related to later attendance. Similarly, mental health at baseline was strongly associated with later mental health scores. Poorer mental health at age 53 and 60–64 was associated with more frequent religious attendance at age 60–64 (b=0.04; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05) and at age 68–69 (b=0.03; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.06; p<0.05), respectively. There was no association at the 5% level between religious attendance and later or concurrent mental health. Sensitivity analysis which modelled religious attendance as a categorical variable, found the same pattern of associations (online supplemental table S4).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Auto-regressive cross-lagged model testing bi-directional associations between religious attendance and GHQ score, adjusted for gender and education. Figures represent standardised regression coefficients and SEs. GHQ, General Health Questionnaire. *p<0.05; **p<0.01: ***p<0.001.

    Discussion

    Summary

    This study tested bi-directional associations between religiosity and mental health using an autoregressive cross-lagged model to analyse data across 26 years. We found that religious attendance and mental health both track in middle-life and that poorer mental health is associated with more frequent religious attendance, but that religious attendance was not associated with subsequent mental health.

    Comparison with existing literature

    Our findings do not support our stated hypotheses and are in contrast with the majority of previous research on religion and mental health.5–7 The most relevant study is by Li et al, who used longitudinal data from more than 48 000 female nurses in the USA to investigate associations between religious attendance and depressive symptoms, and change in religious service attendance and subsequent depression.18 They found that after 8 years, those with depression at baseline were less likely to attend religious services and that attending religious services was associated with a lower risk of depression. Our findings are also in contrast to those from a UK based longitudinal study where Aksoy et al found a positive association between religious attendance and mental health in a sample of over 50 000 people.8 Our novel findings are likely to be partially due to methodological differences. We employed a cross-lagged method to simultaneously assess reciprocal associations, whereas other studies examined bi-directional associations independently. It is also possible that differences in sample characteristics, such as age, ethnicity and religious affiliation, may explain the contrasting results. There is likely to be variation between the UK and USA, where most previous research on this topic has taken place, due to cultural differences in the relationship people have with religious organisations and in denomination between the two countries.19 For example, in this study 41% of study members reported their religious denomination as Protestant at age 36 (1982) compared with 58% of Americans in 1988. (See online supplemental table S5); previous comparisons of religious practices and beliefs between the UK and USA show that the USA is more religious on every measure.20 21

    Furthermore, many studies on religion and mental health are with populations that are not generalisable to an adult community sample, for example, populations from clinical settings (such as those with a terminal illness) or children.22–24 Differences could also be due to the extended follow-up with birth cohort data; previous studies investigating bi-directional associations had follow-up times ranging from 10 weeks to 8 years.7 When comparing our findings, it is also important to consider the potential impact of cohort effects as previous research using data from repeated cross-sectional surveys and other cohort studies suggest a decline in the rates of religious attendance and belief in God across cohorts.25 26

    A possible explanation for the findings is that participants may be using religious attendance as a coping mechanism in response to psychological distress. Religion is frequently reported as a coping mechanism for stressful life events, particularly in response to health problems.27 28 This process has been conceptualised as ‘religious coping’, which proposes that religious involvement can be protective of mental health by providing meaning in life and a framework for which to understand and deal with difficult situations, offering a sense of control and through the provision of social support and social cohesiveness through ritual and traditions.29 30 This hypothesis is supported by post-hoc analysis, which found that study members who were experiencing high levels of psychological distress at age 53 (a score of 24 or more on the GHQ-28 scale31 were more likely to report an increase in their religious attendance from age 43 to 60–64 compared with those with lower levels of distress (24.8% vs 51.9%). The same pattern was found when examining psychological distress at age 60–64 and an increase in attendance from this age to 68–69 (25.7% vs 38.5%). Details of this post-hoc analysis can be found in online supplemental table S6.

    It is possible that being part of a religious community and regularly attending religious services confers access to emotional support, advice and practical help which are perceived to be beneficial for mental health.32 For example, Ross and Mirowsky found that people belonging to religious groups were more likely to talk about their problems than those in a non-religious groups.33 Some studies have found that religious beliefs and attendance are associated with reduced risk of loneliness via higher levels of social integration (measured by the size of their social networks and how often they see their friends and family) and social support.34 35

    Despite there being several plausible mechanisms for how religious attendance may be beneficial for or protective or mental health, no such associations were found in this study. It is possible that the potential therapeutic effects of religious attendance may dissipate over time and therefore may not be evident several years later. Future research investigating study members who consistently attend religious attendance may help to understand this further.

    Strengths and limitations

    The potential for reverse directionality has previously been identified in research relating to religiosity and health but has not been extensively researched.7 The results presented in this paper are the first examination of the bi-directional prospective associations between religious attendance and mental health in the UK. This analysis was enabled using an autoregressive cross-lagged model, which has many strengths but also several limitations.36 The main strength is that it can use repeated measures from cohort studies in order to better investigate reciprocal associations between two variables, in this case religious attendance and mental health, and obtain standardised estimates allowing a comparison of the associations in both directions.14 37 A limitation of the model is that the lagged effects reported in this study are a combination of between-person and within-person change with an additional cross-lagged influence of the factors investigated within the same individuals over time. However, despite the longitudinal nature of these analyses, it is still challenging to demonstrate a causal relationship between mental health and religious attendance. Furthermore, the time period was not equal between waves, and the measures of religious attendance and mental health were not always collected at the same time. This may lead to biases as cross-lagged models assume synchronicity between measures at the same time point and equidistance of time intervals.38 The phrasing of the questions to measure religious attendance varied slightly from wave to wave, and therefore it is possible this was interpreted differently by study members and may not measure the same construct.

    Missing data are a common problem in longitudinal studies and can potentially lead to biased estimates and reduced statistical power. In this investigation, it was found that study members with missing data on religious attendance were more likely to have worse mental health compared with those with complete data (online supplemental table S3). Since it was possible that implementing complete case analysis would over-estimate associations between religiosity and mental health and well-being, missing data for exposure variables and covariates were handled by using FIML, allowing parameter estimation using all available data.15–17

    This study only presents findings for religious attendance as these were the only religion-related variables for which comparable repeated measures were available. Future research should explore how different aspects of religion, such as beliefs and prayer, are associated with mental health. Although participants from NSHD provide a nationally representative sample, it is not possible to generalise these findings to younger generations, religions other than Christianity, or different cultures.39 The analyses presented in this paper should be extended accordingly.

    Implications and further research

    Religious institutions can offer social and psychological support in times of distress by providing hope, meaning and social contact and support.30 Future research should explore this more explicitly by investigating whether religious attendance or other aspects of religiosity can moderate the impact of stressful life events on mental health. While it is not reasonable to advocate joining a religious group or taking up religious practices for those who do not identify as religious, further research using more in-depth measures into the mechanisms of how religion is associated with mental health could identify areas for intervention development. For example, research on aspects of religiosity such as gratitude, forgiveness and compassion has suggested some beneficial associations with mental health and are considered to be universal aspects of eudaemonic well-being that extend beyond religiosity.40

    Conclusion

    Poor mental health was associated with later religious attendance but not vice versa. Future research should aim to confirm these novel findings and examine the processes through which mental health and religious attendance are associated.

    What is already known on this subject

    • There is some evidence that religious attendance is associated with benefits for mental health, with some studies suggesting that the relationship may be bi-directional, and that religious attendance is a marker for good health. Most of the previous research has taken place inthe USA and are not generalisable to the UK where the topic has remained unexplored.

    What this study adds

    • This study represents the first exploration of bi-directional associations between religious attendance and mental health using data across 26 years from a British birth cohort study. We found that religious attendance was not associated with later mental health, but that higher levels of depression and anxiety was associated with a later increase in religious attendance. As these findings are novel and contrary to most of the existing research, future work should aim to investigate potential mechanisms between mental health and religious attendance such as effect moderation of stressful life events.

    Data availability statement

    Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data sharing is dependent on the approval by the NSHD Data Sharing Committee, a data-sharing agreement being in place between UCL and the academic institution that employs the researcher, and LHA resources being available to meet the requests for data sharing. Metadata can be browsed on Skylark: https://skylark/ucl.ac.uk/Skylark.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    All participants have provided written informed consent; data collections at ages 43, 53, 60–64 and 68–69 years were approved by the Joint UCL/UCLH Committee on the Ethics of Human Research at age 43, North Thames Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee at age 53, the Central Manchester Local Research Ethics Committee at age 60–64, and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (14/SS/1009) and the Queen Square Research Ethics Committee (14/LO/1073) at age 68–69.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors are grateful to NSHD study members for their continuing support. We thank members of the NSHD scientific and data collection team at the MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Evans J ,
      3. Macrory I ,
      4. Randall C
      . Measuring national wellbeing: life in the UK ONS, 2016. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/measuringnationalwellbeing/2016#how-good-is-our-health.2020
    2. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Risks to mental health: an overview of vulnerabilities and risk factors. World Health Organization, 2012.
    3. ↵
      2. McCrone P ,
      3. Dhanasiri S ,
      4. Patel A
      . Paying the price: the cost of mental health care in England to 2026. London: King’s Fund, 2008.
    4. ↵
      2. Bonelli RM ,
      3. Koenig HG
      . Mental disorders, religion and spirituality 1990 to 2010: a systematic evidence-based review. J Relig Health 2013;52:657–73.doi:10.1007/s10943-013-9691-4 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23420279
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Koenig HG ,
      3. Religion KHG
      . Religion, spirituality, and health: a review and update. Adv Mind Body Med 2015;29:19–26.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26026153
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Garssen B ,
      3. Visser A ,
      4. Pool G
      . Does spirituality or religion positively affect mental health? meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Psychol Relig 2021;31:4–20.doi:10.1080/10508619.2020.1729570
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      2. Braam AW ,
      3. Koenig HG
      . Religion, spirituality and depression in prospective studies: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2019;257:428–38.doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.063 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31326688
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Aksoy O ,
      3. Bann D ,
      4. Fluharty ME , et al
      . Religiosity and mental wellbeing among members of majority and minority religions: findings from understanding Society, the UK household longitudinal study. Am J Epidemiol 2021.doi:10.1093/aje/kwab133
    9. ↵
      2. Kuh D ,
      3. Wong A ,
      4. Shah I , et al
      . The MRC National Survey of Health and Development reaches age 70: maintaining participation at older ages in a birth cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol 2016;31:1135–47.doi:10.1007/s10654-016-0217-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27995394
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Stafford M ,
      3. Black S ,
      4. Shah I , et al
      . Using a birth cohort to study ageing: representativeness and response rates in the National Survey of Health and Development. Eur J Ageing 2013;10:145–57.doi:10.1007/s10433-013-0258-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23637643
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      2. Wadsworth M ,
      3. Kuh D ,
      4. Richards M , et al
      . Cohort profile: the 1946 national birth cohort (MRC national survey of health and development). Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:49–54.doi:10.1093/ije/dyi201 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16204333
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      2. Goldberg DP ,
      3. Hillier VF
      . A scaled version of the general health questionnaire. Psychol Med 1979;9:139–45.doi:10.1017/S0033291700021644 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/424481
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Department of Education and Science
      . Burnham further education Committee grading courses. HMSO London, 1972.
    14. ↵
      2. Berrington A ,
      3. Smith P ,
      4. Sturgis P
      . An overview of methods for the analysis of panel data, 2006.
    15. ↵
      2. Enders CK
      . The performance of the full information maximum likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing data. Educ Psychol Meas 2001;61:713–40.doi:10.1177/0013164401615001
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      2. Dong Y ,
      3. Peng C-YJ
      . Principled missing data methods for researchers. Springerplus 2013;2:222. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-222 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23853744
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Collins LM ,
      3. Schafer JL ,
      4. Kam CM
      . A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychol Methods 2001;6:330–51.doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11778676
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      2. Li S ,
      3. Okereke OI ,
      4. Chang S-C , et al
      . Religious service attendance and lower depression among Women-a prospective cohort study. Ann Behav Med 2016;50:876–84.doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9813-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27393076
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Cooperman A ,
      3. Smith G ,
      4. Ritchey K
      . America's changing religious landscape. numbers, facts and trends shaping the world. Pew Research Centre, 2015.
    20. ↵
      1. Pew Research Centre
      . Religion in American life. The 2004 political landscape, 2003.
    21. ↵
      2. Voas D ,
      3. Ling R
      . Religion in Britain and the United States. In: Park A , Curtice J , Thomson K , et al. , eds. British social attitudes: the 26th report. Elizabeth Clery and Sarah Butt: Sage, 2010: 65–86.
    22. ↵
      2. Horowitz JL ,
      3. Garber J
      . Relation of intelligence and religiosity to depressive disorders in offspring of depressed and nondepressed mothers. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003;42:578–86.doi:10.1097/01.CHI.0000046831.09750.03 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12707562
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Reynolds N ,
      3. Mrug S ,
      4. Hensler M , et al
      . Spiritual coping and adjustment in adolescents with chronic illness: a 2-year prospective study. J Pediatr Psychol 2014;39:542–51.doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu011 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24648256
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Sherman AC ,
      3. Plante TG ,
      4. Simonton S , et al
      . Prospective study of religious coping among patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. J Behav Med 2009;32:118–28.doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9179-y pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18855130
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Park A ,
      3. Clery E ,
      4. Curtice J
      , eds. British social attitudes 28. National Centre for Social Research, 2012.
    26. ↵
      2. Gill R ,
      3. Hadaway CK ,
      4. Marler PL
      . Is religious belief declining in Britain? J Sci Study Relig 1998;37:507–16.doi:10.2307/1388057
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      2. Park CL
      . Religiousness and religious coping as determinants of stress-related growth. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 2006;28:287–302.doi:10.1163/008467206777832517
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      2. Marks L ,
      3. Nesteruk O ,
      4. Swanson M
      . Religion and health among African Americans: a qualitative examination. Research on Aging 2005;27:447–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      2. Ano GG ,
      3. Vasconcelles EB
      . Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol 2005;61:461–80.doi:10.1002/jclp.20049 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15503316
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      2. Pargament KI ,
      3. Koenig HG ,
      4. Perez LM
      . The many methods of religious coping: development and initial validation of the RCOPE. J Clin Psychol 2000;56:519–43.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4&lt;519::AID-JCLP6&gt;3.0.CO;2-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10775045
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      2. Sterling M
      . General Health Questionnaire - 28 (GHQ-28). J Physiother 2011;57:259. doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(11)70060-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22093128
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. VanderWeele TJ
      . Religious communities and human Flourishing. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2017;26:476–81.doi:10.1177/0963721417721526 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29170606
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      2. Ross CE ,
      3. Mirowsky J
      . Explaining the social patterns of depression: control and problem solving--or support and talking? J Health Soc Behav 1989;30:206–19.doi:10.2307/2137014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2738367
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      2. Rote S ,
      3. Hill TD ,
      4. Ellison CG
      . Religious attendance and loneliness in later life. Gerontologist 2013;53:39–50.doi:10.1093/geront/gns063 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22555887
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      2. Kirkpatrick LA ,
      3. Shillito DJ ,
      4. Kellas SL
      . Loneliness, social support, and perceived relationships with God. J Soc Pers Relat 1999;16:513–22.doi:10.1177/0265407599164006
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      2. Hamaker EL ,
      3. Kuiper RM ,
      4. Grasman RPPP
      . A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol Methods 2015;20:102–16.doi:10.1037/a0038889 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25822208
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      2. Kearney MW
      . Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis. In: Allen M , ed. The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2018: 313–4.
    38. ↵
      2. Kuiper RM ,
      3. Ryan O
      . Drawing conclusions from cross-lagged relationships: Re-considering the role of the time-interval. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2018;25:809–23.doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1431046
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      2. Glenn ND
      . Distinguishing age, period, and cohort effects. Handbook of the life course. Springer, 2003: 465–76.
    40. ↵
      2. Baetz M ,
      3. Toews J
      . Clinical implications of research on religion, spirituality, and mental health. Can J Psychiatry 2009;54:292–301.doi:10.1177/070674370905400503 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19497161
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @aradhnakaushal

    • Contributors AK and MS conceived and designed the analysis. AK and DC carried out the analysis. AK wrote the paper. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data, contributed critical revisions and provided final approval of the version to be published. AK is the guarantor of the research project and accepts full responsibility for the finished work, the conduct of the research, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

    • Funding This work was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (Programme codes MC_UU_12019/1 and 4). AK was supported by a UK Medical Research Council PhD studentship. DC is funded by the National Institute on Aging (grant RO1AG017644) and ESRC (grants ES/T012091/1 and ES/S013830/1).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.