Like adults, kids who are more spiritual or religious tend to be healthier.
That’s the conclusion of Dr. Barry Nierenberg, Ph.D., ABPP, associate professor of psychology at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who has been studying the relationship between faith and health. He presented on the topic at the American Psychological Association’s Division of Rehabilitation Psychology national conference on February 27, in Jackson, Fla.
“A number of studies have shown a positive relationship between participatory prayer and lower rates of heart disease, cirrhosis, emphysema and stroke in adults,” he says. “Prayer has been shown to correlate to lower blood pressure, cortisol levels, rates of depression, as well as increased rates of self-described well being.”
“But very few studies have attempted to examine how children’s spiritual beliefs impact their health,” he says. Initially, Nierenberg conducted a study of HIV positive pediatric patients (ages seven to 17), comparing religious development, church attendance and prayer to health measures such as symptoms, T-cell counts and number of hospitalizations.
“One significant finding was that children who attended church were more likely to have higher T-cell counts than non churchgoing children,” he says, “but that finding is difficult to interpret. It’s likely that the more ill a child is, the less ability they have to attend church.”
“We needed a second study to more precisely examine religious faith and behavior,” he says.
So they examined 16 children (ages six to 20) who were undergoing hemodialysis due to End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The patients were questioned on a scale of spirituality behaviors and attitudes, and responses were correlated to dialysis-related blood levels, including: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), lymphocytes, albumin, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and urea reduction ratio.
“There was a significant negative correlation between spiritual attitudes and BUN levels,” he says. “As children reported more agreement with statements like, ‘I am sure that God cares about me,’ and ‘God has a plan for me,” their average BUN levels over the past year were lower.”
“We have a deeper understanding of why there is so little in the literature exploring the relationship between health spirituality in children and adolescents,” he says. “It’s challenging to measure in this population. It can be difficult getting all the necessary permission. The pool of children is limited, and the interviews can be time consuming. But it’s important it’s done for the same reason we study it in adults.”
Comments
Hank Campbell | 03/12/09 | 09:16 AM
The fun thing about correlation studies like this is that you can make up all sorts explanations for the results. How about this one: maybe as kids get sicker, they start to hate God more.
As Josh has put it: there is a very strong correlation between him mowing his lawn and having a beer. So maybe if he drinks a beer, his lawn will get mowed.
As Josh has put it: there is a very strong correlation between him mowing his lawn and having a beer. So maybe if he drinks a beer, his lawn will get mowed.
Michael White | 03/12/09 | 09:33 AM
As I have said many times: don't believe ANY study showing that religious people are more ANYTHING than non-religious people until the capacity for humans to LIE about being religious or not is taking out of the equation through lie-detector tests or something even better at telling lies than that.
Christopher (not verified) | 03/15/09 | 06:40 AM
agreement with statements like, ‘I am sure that God cares about me,’ and ‘God has a plan for me',
Ah! The leading question! Forbidden in a court of common law, but permissible in a scientific context?
You're joshing me, right?
On correlation:
A recent study of historical figures showed that a majority of those who were obese had large libraries.
Books make you fat, q.e.d.
Patrick Lockerby | 03/15/09 | 14:29 PM
Though correlation and causation examples are often not wrong. A lot of people who are anti-science (skeptics, many of them educated by social science ways of thought) tend to invoke it dismissively for everything. Where there is smoke there is fire is usually quite accurate, for example.
And the correlation joke, "we've discovered the cause of schizophrenia in women - it's house cats" was an obvious one playing on the well-known stereotype of the crazy cat lady we all knew, but it turns out there was some causation there too.
And the correlation joke, "we've discovered the cause of schizophrenia in women - it's house cats" was an obvious one playing on the well-known stereotype of the crazy cat lady we all knew, but it turns out there was some causation there too.
Hank Campbell | 03/15/09 | 14:53 PM
Patrick Lockerby | 03/15/09 | 15:22 PM
Thanks for the link to the pussy-pies. It reminds me of the time when Laing's The Divided Self was doing the rounds. As for the main topic and discussion:
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
Ecclesiastes 1:5-8a
Life gets teejus, don' it?
Robert H Olley | 04/18/09 | 04:11 AM
Actually (speaking as an anthropologist) it does have a place in research. It helps identify the context in which the person sees themselves. I don't know how rigorous the questions were (it seems horrible to subject very ill children and their parents to a 200 question multiple choice test with several variants of each question to make sure they were responding as they believed.)
My personal preference for doing research is patient interviews ("tell me about what's happened, eh?") It's the very devil to tease the data out, but you're less likely to run into issues such as "why didn't you offer me "option e"?
And yes, the last time I gave a multiple choice interview (the client insisted they wanted us to ask these questions), I did see people "performing" to please us and to get the offered reward (a funny little necklace for the kids).
Mel. White | 04/18/09 | 01:42 AM
I find this article amusing. From testing 16 people, the professor came to the conclusion, that the religious kids are healtier :D hahahahahahha
Ok, sure, the writer may have a phd in psychology, but if he thinks he proved his thesis by testing 16 kids...c'mon, my proffesor for statistics would be shocked by this article. I have to do a report, where i need to find out how the pacients are satisfied with the medical staf, doctors, etc in a certain hospital. I have to ask about 300-400 people, to find out, what the general opinion about the medical staf is, and he tests 16 kids, and says his thesis is correct.....hahahahaha, hilarious
But hey, maybe I'll show this article to my professor, and tell him, if a professor with a phd can test only 16 people to prove his thesis, i'll do the same. No point in bothering 300-400 people :D
No one special (not verified) | 03/15/09 | 15:20 PM
Furthermore, being Evangelical seems to bring about a set of stressors that most people don't have. They *expect* the end of the world, so every news item is a "herald of the return, any day now." Many of them stress over "unsaved family members (because Jesus is coming any day now and they'll all be sent to hell)", many have poor relationships with spouses and others.
I think that if health measurements of these people were taken and they were followed over the years and compared with (for example) a group like the skeptics over at the JREF boards and Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy board, that we might find the skeptics actually had better health, better social relationships, and got a lot less stressed over the news.
(I promise I'll blog about my observations. It's been interesting. They had a couple of meltdowns when people would predict "THIS is the date of the coming and all the signs are RIGHT!")
Mel. White | 04/18/09 | 01:36 AM
That's just another thing that science and religion share in common, a millenarian perspective :)
Well if you are a true believing Bible thumping fundementalist, the end of the world is not going to worry you unless you have been doing something very naughty in the meantime.
Science unerringly predicts the end of the world in a huge number of scenarios, none of which put off the inevitability of the final end of all things
We are the only consciousness of the Universe that we are currently aware of, and like our own consciousness of ourselves we only know a fraction of it. Philosophy was the progenitor of science and there remain questions that only philosophy can address. The proposition of consciousness is itself a construct named in a particular system, it is not inconcievable that there might exist an alternative system of reasoning and explanation of the processes at work that put us in this position.
In medieval times it was said that it was still possible for one individual to know all that there was to be known through assidous scholarship (I am not sure that was ever really the case but it serves as a useful metaphor for the exponential growth in specialities.)
Nowadays no one individual consciousness can hold all that information, therefore we as individuals are certainly not evidence of a universe that is conscious of itself, we are not even the neurones of that consciousness but perhaps its synapses.
Where is all this knowledge going if we become extinct in a few centuries or a few billion years? I wonder, and perhaps that capacity for wonder is where it all starts. science and 'religion' both.
Well if you are a true believing Bible thumping fundementalist, the end of the world is not going to worry you unless you have been doing something very naughty in the meantime.
Science unerringly predicts the end of the world in a huge number of scenarios, none of which put off the inevitability of the final end of all things
We are the only consciousness of the Universe that we are currently aware of, and like our own consciousness of ourselves we only know a fraction of it. Philosophy was the progenitor of science and there remain questions that only philosophy can address. The proposition of consciousness is itself a construct named in a particular system, it is not inconcievable that there might exist an alternative system of reasoning and explanation of the processes at work that put us in this position.
In medieval times it was said that it was still possible for one individual to know all that there was to be known through assidous scholarship (I am not sure that was ever really the case but it serves as a useful metaphor for the exponential growth in specialities.)
Nowadays no one individual consciousness can hold all that information, therefore we as individuals are certainly not evidence of a universe that is conscious of itself, we are not even the neurones of that consciousness but perhaps its synapses.
Where is all this knowledge going if we become extinct in a few centuries or a few billion years? I wonder, and perhaps that capacity for wonder is where it all starts. science and 'religion' both.
Laurence Arnold | 04/18/09 | 06:24 AM
At least millenia are predictable events. We had one guy sign up here, a journalist with a background, who wrote one decent article and then started devolving into paranoid rants about the LHC. Then he wrote me an email telling me he could correlate it to the Mayan calendar end of the world in 2012.
Finally, he used the phrase "My theory is ..." about the behavior of strangelets at the LHC and he had to go. I can deal with weirdness about Mayans but not people who don't know what a theory is.
Finally, he used the phrase "My theory is ..." about the behavior of strangelets at the LHC and he had to go. I can deal with weirdness about Mayans but not people who don't know what a theory is.
Hank Campbell | 04/18/09 | 09:39 AM










Check out the questions:
He's not testing whether these children are religious - he's basically asking whether they are evangelical Christians. I'm sure it was all he could to do refrain from asking the kids 'have you accepted Jesus as your savior?' as part of the interview.