Skip to main content

Elephant in the Room: Why Spirituality and Religion Matter for Public Health

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health

Part of the book series: Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Approach ((RELSPHE,volume 2))

Abstract

This chapter introduces the book Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health: Evidence, Implications, and Resources. More than 3000 empirical studies 100 systematic reviews have been published on relations of religion and/or spirituality (R/S) with health, but R/S factors remain neglected in public health teaching and research. R.S reflects ultimate concern that taps deep motivations, and R/S typically encourages stewardship of health, so its health-relevance is unsurprising from a behavioral motivation perspective. R/S engagement also commonly fosters social support and access to distinctive methods of coping with stress, elements of a “generic model ” of how R/S influences health. Predominantly favorable relations suggest that R/S might be a fundamental cause of health, but R/S factors also sometimes correlate unfavorably with risk factors or poorer health. Part I of this volume contains 14 chapters that review evidence on R/S-health relations from the perspectives of major subfields of public health that include social factors, nutrition, infectious diseases, environmental health, maternal/child health, health policy and management, public health education and promotion, mental health, and clinical practice. Part II contains two chapters that address implications for public health practice, emphasizing community-based health promotion, health policy advocacy, and healthcare systems and management. The eight chapters in Part III offer resources for public health educators, including narratives of how R/S-health relations have been taught in schools of public health at universities that include Emory, Harvard, University of California at Berkeley, Boston University, University of Michigan, Drexel University, and University of Illinois at Chicago. A concluding chapter offers international perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Estimates of the fraction of US adults who view themselves as spiritual but not religious have varied, perhaps in part due to different ways of asking the question. Up to 33% of respondents in national surveys have reported they were “spiritual but not religious,” when given the alternatives of “religious” (50%) and “neither” (11%) (Gallup Poll 2002, with 4% volunteering that they were both spiritual and religious). However, Hastings (2016) reports that in the US General Social Survey, percentages increased from 1.9% in 1998 to a maximum of 6.7% in 2014, when measured as respondents who rarely or never attended religious services and who considered themselves “very or moderately spiritual” (p. 68).

  2. 2.

    Some readers may also find useful an influential set of definitions that have been offered by psychologist Kenneth Pargament (1997). He suggests defining spirituality as a “search for the sacred,” and defining religion (or religiousness) as a “search for significance in ways related to the sacred” (p. 32). More recently, he offered an alternative definition of religion as “the search for significance that occurs within the context of established institutions that are designed to facilitate spirituality” (Pargament et al. 2013, p. 15). According to this later definition, religion is broader than spirituality in its function, but narrower than spirituality in its institutional base. Pargament’s framework has been found relevant to both Western (Abrahamic) and Indian (Dharmic) traditions (Oman and Paranjpe 2017).

  3. 3.

    “The first edition contained information on “over twelve hundred research studies conducted from the 1800s up to the year 2000,” and the second edition included “over twenty-one hundred quantitative studies exami9ning the religion-health relationship during the ten years between 2000 and 2010…. We estimate that this review covers about 75 percent of the existing research” (Koenig et al. 2012, pp. 5, 9, emphasis in original).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doug Oman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Oman, D. (2018). Elephant in the Room: Why Spirituality and Religion Matter for Public Health. In: Oman, D. (eds) Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health. Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Approach, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73965-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73966-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics