{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Shields AE"],"funding":["John Templeton Foundation"],"pagination":["973"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7310072"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["20(1)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>The goal of this study was to understand prospective cohort study Principal Investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of religion and spirituality (R/S) on disease etiology in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research.<h4>Methods</h4>One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs, who represent 24 different National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded prospective cohort studies in the U.S. Collectively, these PIs collect detailed health data on approximately 1.25 of every 100 adult Americans. Sample size was calculated to achieve thematic saturation.<h4>Results</h4>The majority of PIs we interviewed viewed R/S as potentially important factors influencing disease etiology, particularly among minority communities that report higher levels of religiosity. Yet nearly all PIs interviewed felt there was not yet a compelling body of evidence elucidating R/S influences on health, and the potential mechanisms through which R/S may be operating to affect health outcomes. PIs identified 5 key areas that would need to be addressed before they would be persuaded to collect more R/S measures in their cohorts: (1) high-quality, prospective studies that include all appropriate covariates for the outcome under study; (2) studies that posit a plausible biological mechanism of effect; (3) well-validated R/S measures, collected in common across multiple cohorts; (4) the need to address bias against R/S research among investigators; and (5) NIH funding for R/S research.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Results of this study provide a roadmap for future R/S research investigating the impact of R/S influences on disease etiology within the context of U.S. prospective cohort studies. Identifying significant R/S influences on health could inform novel interventions to improve population health. Given the higher levels of religiosity/spirituality among minority communities, R/S research may also provide new leverage points for reducing health disparities."],"journal":["BMC public health"],"pubmed_title":["Building towards common psychosocial measures in U.S. cohort studies: principal investigators' views regarding the role of religiosity and spirituality in human health."],"pmcid":["PMC7310072"],"funding_grant_id":["48424"],"pubmed_authors":["Shields AE","Balboni TA"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Building towards common psychosocial measures in U.S. cohort studies: principal investigators' views regarding the role of religiosity and spirituality in human health.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>The goal of this study was to understand prospective cohort study Principal Investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of religion and spirituality (R/S) on disease etiology in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research.<h4>Methods</h4>One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs, who represent 24 different National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded prospective cohort studies in the U.S. Collectively, these PIs collect detailed health data on approximately 1.25 of every 100 adult Americans. Sample size was calculated to achieve thematic saturation.<h4>Results</h4>The majority of PIs we interviewed viewed R/S as potentially important factors influencing disease etiology, particularly among minority communities that report higher levels of religiosity. Yet nearly all PIs interviewed felt there was not yet a compelling body of evidence elucidating R/S influences on health, and the potential mechanisms through which R/S may be operating to affect health outcomes. PIs identified 5 key areas that would need to be addressed before they would be persuaded to collect more R/S measures in their cohorts: (1) high-quality, prospective studies that include all appropriate covariates for the outcome under study; (2) studies that posit a plausible biological mechanism of effect; (3) well-validated R/S measures, collected in common across multiple cohorts; (4) the need to address bias against R/S research among investigators; and (5) NIH funding for R/S research.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Results of this study provide a roadmap for future R/S research investigating the impact of R/S influences on disease etiology within the context of U.S. prospective cohort studies. Identifying significant R/S influences on health could inform novel interventions to improve population health. Given the higher levels of religiosity/spirituality among minority communities, R/S research may also provide new leverage points for reducing health disparities.","dates":{"release":"2020-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2020 Jun","modification":"2021-03-12T08:37:03Z","creation":"2020-06-28T07:03:02Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC7310072","cross_references":{"pubmed":["32571256"],"doi":["10.1186/s12889-020-08854-8"]}}