| Title |
Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, May 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-007-9106-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin S. Masters, Glen I. Spielmans |
| Abstract |
This article reviews the empirical research on prayer and health and offers a research agenda to guide future studies. Though many people practice prayer and believe it affects their health, scientific evidence is limited. In keeping with a general increase in interest in spirituality and complementary and alternative treatments, prayer has garnered attention among a growing number of behavioral scientists. The effects of distant intercessory prayer are examined by meta-analysis and it is concluded that no discernable effects can be found. The literature regarding frequency of prayer, content of prayer, and prayer as a coping strategy is subsequently reviewed. Suggestions for future research include the conduct of experimental studies based on conceptual models that include precise operationally defined constructs, longitudinal investigations with proper measure of control variables, and increased use of ecological momentary assessment techniques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
| France | 2 | 11% |
| South Africa | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Scientists | 4 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 174 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 56 | 30% |
| Unknown | 26 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 61 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 12 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,118,556
of 25,372,398 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#172
of 1,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,705
of 86,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,372,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 86,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.