Religiosity and COVID-19: Impact on Use of Remote Worship and Changes in Self-Reported Social Support
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design and Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pew Research Center. Most Americans Say Coronavirus Outbreak Has Impacted Their Lives; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/03/30/most-americans-say-coronavirus-outbreak-has-impacted-their-lives/ (accessed on 5 September 2021).
- Koenig, H.G. Maintaining Health and Well-Being by Putting Faith into Action during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Relig. Health 2020, 59, 2205–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C. Religious social support. In Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine; Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1650–1653. [Google Scholar]
- Ozbay, F.; Johnson, D.C.; Dimoulas, E.; A Morgan, C.; Charney, D.; Southwick, S. Social support and resilience to stress: From neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry 2007, 4, 35–40. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/ (accessed on 8 October 2021). [PubMed]
- Reblin, M.; Uchino, B.N. Social and emotional support and its implication for health. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2008, 21, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lim, C.; Putnam, R.D. Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 75, 914–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kate, J.T.; de Koster, W.; van der Waal, J. The effect of religiosity on life satisfaction in a secularized context: Assessing the relevance of believing and belonging. Rev. Relig. Res. 2017, 59, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ai, A.L.; Tice, T.N.; Peterson, C.; Huang, B. Prayers, spiritual support, and positive attitudes in coping with the September 11 national crisis. J. Personal. 2005, 73, 763–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koenig, H.; King, D.; Carson, V. Handbook of Religion and Health, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. Religiosity and life satisfaction across nations. Ment. Health Relig. Cult. 2010, 13, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatters, L.M.; Taylor, R.J.; Woodward, A.T.; Nicklett, E.J. Social support from church and family members and depressive symptoms among older African Americans. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2015, 23, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hovey, J.D.; Hurtado, G.; Morales, L.R.A.; Seligman, L.D. Religion-based emotional social support mediates the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and mental health. Arch. Suicide Res. 2014, 18, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocalevent, R.-D.; Berg, L.; Beutel, M.E.; Hinz, A.; Zenger, M.; Härter, M.; Nater, U.; Brähler, E. Social support in the general population: Standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zimet, G.D.; Dahlem, N.W.; Zimet, S.G.; Farley, G.K. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J. Personal. Assess. 1988, 52, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bøen, H.; Dalgard, O.S.; Bjertness, E. The importance of social support in the associations between psychological distress and somatic health problems and socio-economic factors among older adults living at home: A cross sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2012, 12, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Olson, D.; Shultz, K.S. Gender Differences in the Dimensionality of Social Support. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 24, 1221–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherbourne, C.D.; Stewart, A.L. The MOS social support survey. Soc. Sci. Med. 1991, 32, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakespeare-Finch, J.; Obst, P.L. The development of the 2-way social support scale: A measure of giving and receiving emotional and instrumental support. J. Personal. Assess. 2011, 93, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siceloff, E.R.; Wilson, D.K.; Van Horn, L. A longitudinal study of the effects of instrumental and emotional social support on physical activity in underserved adolescents in the ACT trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 2014, 48, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hill, E.M. Quality of life and mental health among women with ovarian cancer: Examining the role of emotional and instrumental social support seeking. Psychol. Health Med. 2016, 21, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmuck, J.; Hiebel, N.; Rabe, M.; Schneider, J.; Erim, Y.; Morawa, E.; Jerg-Bretzke, L.; Beschoner, P.; Albus, C.; Hannemann, J.; et al. Sense of coherence, social support and religiosity as resources for medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic: A web-based survey among 4324 health care workers within the German Network University Medicine. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Usman, M.; Cheng, J.; Ghani, U.; Gul, H.; Shah, W.U. Social support and perceived uncertainties during COVID-19: Consequences for employees’ well-being. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, D. The Great Shutdown 2020: What Churches, Mosques and Temples Are Doing to Fight the Spread of Coronavirus; CNN: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/world/churches-mosques-temples-coronavirus-spread/index.html (accessed on 14 March 2020).
- Cohen, H.; Smalls, C.I. How Do You Pray Now? Churches, Temples, Mosques Go Virtual as Coronavirus Deepens; Miami Heral: Miami, FL, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241302451.html (accessed on 21 March 2020).
- Modell, S.M.; Kardia, S.L.R. Religion as a health promoter during the 2019/2020 COVID outbreak: View from Detroit. J. Relig. Health 2020, 59, 2243–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weinberger-Litman, S.L.; Litman, L.; Rosen, Z.; Rosmarin, D.H.; Rosenzweig, C. A look at the first quarantined community in the USA: Response of religious communal organizations and implications for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Relig. Health 2020, 59, 2269–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anekwe, O. Unheard Voices of Willowbrook. Voices Bioeth. 2015, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansari, H.; Hassan, L. American Muslims Face a Lonely Ramadan during Lockdown; The Guardian: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/american-muslims-ramadan-coronavirus (accessed on 23 April 2020).
- Parish, H. The absence of presence and the presence of absence: Social distancing, sacraments, and the virtual religious community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Religions 2020, 11, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A. Praying in Time of COVID-19: How World’s Largest Mosques Adapted; Al Jazeera: Doha, Qatar, 2020; Available online: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/praying-time-covid-19-world-largest-mosques-adapted-200406112601868.html (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Whiting, S.; Palomino, J. Bay Area Churches Keep Services Online, though State Allows Them to Reopen; San Francisco Chronicle: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-churches-keep-services-online-though-15299239.php (accessed on 28 May 2020).
- Bryson, J.R.; Andres, L.; Davies, A. COVID-19, virtual church services and a new temporary geography of home. J. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2020, 111, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Engaging Faith-Based Organizations for HIV Epidemic Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/globalhivtb/who-we-are/resources/keyareafactsheets/faith-based-organizations.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2020).
- Qualtrics. Qualtrics: Provo, UT, USA. 2020. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com (accessed on 5 September 2021).
- Zacher, H.; Rudolph, C.W. Individual differences and changes in subjective well-being during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. Psychol. 2021, 76, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamont, R.A.; Calitri, R.; Mounce, L.T.A.; Hollands, L.; Dean, S.G.; Code, C.; Sanders, A.; Tarrant, M. Shared social identity and perceived social support among stroke groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: Relationship with psychosocial health. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magee, M.; Gholamrezaei, A.; McNeilage, A.G.; Dwyer, L.; Sim, A.; Ferreira, M.; Darnall, B.; Glare, P.; Ashton-James, C. Protocol: Evaluating acceptability and feasibility of a mobile health intervention to improve self-efficacy in prescription opioid tapering in patients with chronic pain: Protocol for a pilot randomised, single-blind, controlled trial. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e057174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Religious Leaders and Faith-Based Communities in the Context of COVID-19: Interim Guidance (No. WHO/2019-nCoV/Religious_Leaders/2020.1). Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/practical-considerations-and-recommendations-for-religious-leaders-and-faith-based-communities-in-the-context-of-covid-19 (accessed on 5 September 2021).
- Cooperman, A. Will the Coronavirus Permanently Convert In-Person Worshippers to Online Streamers? They Don’t Think So; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2020/08/17/will-the-coronavirus-permanently-convert-in-person-worshippers-to-online-streamers-they-dont-think-so/ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Gjelten, T. COVID-19 Surge Has Some Church Leaders Rethinking Whether to Reopen. Available online: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirusliveupdates/2020/07/17/892250597/covid-19-surge-has-some-church-leaders-re-thinking-whether-to-reopen (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Kaur, H. How Religious Communities Are Modifying Traditions to Prevent Coronavirus Spread; CNN: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/world/religion-modify-traditions-coronavirus-trnd/index.html (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Ano, G.G.; Vasconcelles, E.B. Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta-analysis. J. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 61, 461–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, N.; Ellison, C.G.; Marcum, J.P. The effects of church-based emotional support on health: Do they vary by gender? Sociol. Relig. 2002, 63, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debnam, K.; Holt, C.L.; Clark, E.M.; Roth, D.L.; Southward, P. Relationship between religious social support and general social support with health behaviors in a national sample of African Americans. J. Behav. Med. 2012, 35, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ellison, C.G.; Levin, J.S. The religion—Health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions. Health Educ. Behav. 1998, 25, 700–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, D.; Wright, K.B.; Hu, B. A meta-analysis of social network site use and social support. Comput. Educ. 2018, 127, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Chung, J.E.; Park, N. Network environments and well-being: An examination of personal network structure, social capital, and perceived social support. Health Commun. 2016, 33, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavolini, E.; Béland, D.; Jawad, R. Mapping the relationship between religion and social policy. J. Int. Comp. Soc. Policy 2017, 33, 240–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompkins, F., Jr.; Goldblum, P.; Lai, T.; Hansell, T.; Barclay, A.; Brown, L.M. A culturally specific mental health and spirituality approach for African Americans facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12, 455–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Risk Communication and Community Engagement Readiness and Response to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Interim Guidance (No. WHO/2019-nCoV/RCCE/2020.2). Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/risk-communication-and-community-engagement-readiness-and-initial-response-for-novel-coronaviruses (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Fletcher, F.E.; Allen, S.; Vickers, S.M.; Beavers, T.; Hamlin, C.M.; Young-Foster, D.; Harris-Turner, S.; Erwin, P.C. COVID-19’s Impact on the African American Community: A stakeholder engagement approach to increase public awareness through virtual town halls. Health Equity 2020, 4, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivera-Hernandez, M. The role of religious leaders in health promotion for older Mexicans with diabetes. J. Relig. Health 2015, 54, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Idler, E.; Levin, J.; VanderWeele, T.J.; Khan, A. Partnerships between Public Health Agencies and Faith Communities. Am. J. Public Health 2019, 109, 346–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levin, J. Faith-based partnerships for population health: Challenges, initiatives, and prospects. Public Health Rep. 2014, 129, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heward-Mills, N.L.; Atuhaire, C.; Spoors, C.; Pemunta, N.V.; Priebe, G.; Cumber, S.N. The role of faith leaders in influencing health behaviour: A qualitative exploration on the views of Black African Christians in Leeds, United Kingdom. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2018, 30, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nurullah, A.S. Received and provided social support: A review of current evidence and future directions. Am. J. Health Stud. 2012, 27, 173–188. [Google Scholar]
Continued Using Remote Worship Services | Started Using Remote Worship Services | Never Used or Stopped Using Remote Worship Services | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n = 98) | (n = 262) | (n = 101) | ||||||
n | [%] | n | [%] | n | [%] | χ2 (df) | p-Value | |
Faith | ||||||||
Christian | 58 | [59.2] | 149 | [56.9] | 57 | [56.4] | 10.508 (4) | 0.033 |
Jewish | 8 | [8.2] | 56 | [21.4] | 18 | [17.8] | ||
Muslim | 32 | [32.7] | 57 | [21.8] | 26 | [25.7] | ||
Age | ||||||||
18–29 years | 14 | [14.3] | 52 | [19.8] | 41 | [40.6] | 80.079 (6) | <0.001 |
30–49 years | 73 | [74.5] | 88 | [33.6] | 27 | [26.7] | ||
50–64 years | 8 | [8.2] | 57 | [21.8] | 18 | [17.8] | ||
65+ years | 3 | [3.1] | 65 | [24.8] | 15 | [14.9] | ||
Educational Attainment | ||||||||
High school or less | 5 | [5.1] | 13 | [5.1] | 9 | [9.3] | 5.620 (4) | 0.229 |
Associate degree or some college | 17 | [17.3] | 62 | [24.1] | 26 | [26.8] | ||
Bachelor’s degree or more | 76 | [77.6] | 182 | [70.8] | 62 | [63.9] | ||
Gender a | ||||||||
Male | 76 | [77.6] | 162 | [61.8] | 57 | [56.4] | 10.852 (2) | 0.004 |
Female | 22 | [22.4] | 100 | [38.2] | 44 | [43.6] | ||
Race/Ethnicity b | ||||||||
White, non-Hispanic | 76 | [77.6] | 165 | [63.0] | 51 | [50.5] | 17.193 (6) | 0.009 |
Black or AA, non-Hispanic | 5 | [5.1] | 29 | [11.2] | 15 | [14.9] | ||
Another or multiple races, non-Hispanic | 6 | [6.1] | 19 | [7.2] | 13 | [12.9] | ||
Hispanic or Latinx | 11 | [11.2] | 49 | [18.7] | 22 | [21.8] | ||
Geographic Region | ||||||||
Miami | 27 | [27.6] | 93 | [35.3] | 44 | [43.6] | 11.934 (4) | 0.018 |
New York City | 56 | [57.1] | 107 | [40.8] | 41 | [40.6] | ||
San Francisco | 15 | [15.3] | 62 | [23.7] | 16 | [15.8] | ||
Household Annual Income | ||||||||
Less than $40,000 | 8 | [8.2] | 49 | [18.7] | 22 | [21.8] | 16.196 (4) | 0.003 |
$40,000 to $79,999 | 16 | [16.3] | 66 | [25.2] | 29 | [28.7] | ||
$80,000 or more | 74 | [75.5] | 147 | [56.1] | 50 | [49.5] | ||
Health Status | ||||||||
Very good | 46 | [46.9] | 77 | [29.4] | 33 | [32.7] | 10.145 (4) | 0.038 |
Good | 43 | [43.9] | 147 | [56.1] | 55 | [54.5] | ||
Neither, poor, or very poor | 9 | [9.2] | 38 | [14.5] | 13 | [12.9] | ||
Role of House of Worship | ||||||||
Sense of Well-being | ||||||||
Yes | 72 | [73.5] | 121 | [46.2] | 47 | [46.5] | 26.049 (4) | <0.001 |
Sometimes | 17 | [17.3] | 94 | [35.9] | 29 | [28.7] | ||
No | 9 | [9.2] | 47 | [17.9] | 25 | [24.8] | ||
Social Issues | ||||||||
Yes | 63 | [64.3] | 105 | [40.1] | 41 | [40.6] | 21.361 (4) | <0.001 |
Sometimes | 18 | [18.4] | 74 | [28.2] | 21 | [20.8] | ||
No | 17 | [17.3] | 83 | [31.7] | 39 | [38.6] | ||
Social Support | ||||||||
Yes | 63 | [64.3] | 112 | [42.7] | 42 | [41.6] | 23.651 (4) | <0.001 |
Sometimes | 14 | [14.3} | 80 | [30.5] | 19 | [18.8] | ||
No | 21 | [21.4] | 70 | [26.7] | 40 | [39.6] | ||
Affected Sense of Community | ||||||||
Yes | 93 | [94.9] | 217 | [82.8] | 65 | [64.4] | 31.449 (2) | <0.001 |
No | 5 | [5.1] | 45 | [17.2] | 36 | [35.6] |
Change to Quantity of Social Support for Personal Problems, before vs. during COVID-19 | Change to Amount of Interest and Concern Felt from other People, before vs. during COVID-19 | Change to Perceived Ease of Getting Necessary Practical Help, before vs. during COVID-19 | Change to OSSS-3 Summary Score, before vs. during COVID-19 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Possible range: −3 to +3 | Possible range: −3 to +3 | Possible range: −4 to +4 | Possible range: −2 to +2 | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | |
Decrease −4 | -- | -- | 2.2% (10) | -- |
Decrease −3 | 1.1% (5) | 0.7% (3) | 2.4% (11) | -- |
Decrease −2 | 5.0% (23) | 4.6% (21) | 10.4% (48) | 1.5% (7) |
Decrease −1 | 16.5% (76) | 15.2% (70) | 20.9% (96) | 14.2% (65) |
No change +/− 0 | 67.4% (310) | 59.4% (274) | 48.5% (223) | 57.7% (265) |
Increase +1 | 9.3% (43) | 19.1% (88) | 12.8% (59) | 24.8% (114) |
Increase +2 | 0.7% (3) | 0.9% (4) | 1.3% (6) | 1.7% (8) |
Increase +3 | 0.0% (0) | 0.2% (1) | 0.9% (4) | -- |
Increase +4 | -- | -- | 0.7% (3) | -- |
Model 1. ODDS of Increased or Decreased Social Support for Personal Problems | ||||||||
More People Close Enough to Count on for Personal Problems | Fewer People Close Enough to Count on for Personal Problems | |||||||
OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-value | OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-Value | |
Change to remote worship use | ||||||||
Continued using remote | 0.71 | (0.31, 1.66) | 0.624 (1) | 0.711 | 1.21 | (0.63, 2.32) | 0.317 (1) | 0.573 |
Started using remote | 0.38 | (0.19, 0.79) | 6.798 (1) | 0.009 | 0.70 | (0.40, 1.22) | 1.596 (1) | 0.206 |
Never used or stopped using remote | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- |
Model 2. Odds of increased or decreased level of interest and concern from other people | ||||||||
Feeling greater interest and concern from other people | Feeling lesser levels of interest and concern from other people | |||||||
OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-value | OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-value | |
Change to remote worship use | ||||||||
Continued using remote | 1.80 | (0.88, 3.69) | 2.576 (1) | 0.108 | 2.62 | (1.24, 5.51) | 6.383 (1) | 0.012 |
Started using remote | 1.28 | (0.70, 2.34) | 0.628 (1) | 0.428 | 1.71 | (0.89, 3.28) | 2.574 (1) | 0.109 |
Never used or stopped using remote | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- |
Model 3. Odds of increased or decreased perceived ease of getting necessary practical help from neighbors | ||||||||
Easier to get necessary practical help from neighbors | Harder to get necessary practical help from neighbors | |||||||
OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-value | OR | (95% CI) | Wald(df) | p-value | |
Change to remote worship use | ||||||||
Continued using remote | 1.98 | (0.93, 4.20) | 3.134 (1) | 0.077 | 2.23 | (1.17, 4.25) | 5.942 (1) | 0.015 |
Started using remote | 0.89 | (0.46, 1.72) | 0.127 (1) | 0.722 | 1.77 | (1.04, 3.02) | 4.473 (1) | 0.034 |
Never used or stopped using remote | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- |
Model 4. Odds of increased or decreased categorical summary social support score | ||||||||
Lower social support | Higher social support | |||||||
OR | (95% CI) | Wald (df) | p-value | OR | (95% CI) | Wald (df) | p-value | |
Change to remote worship use | ||||||||
Continued using remote | 1.73 | (0.74, 4.05) | 1.593 (1) | 0.207 | 1.28 | (0.67, 2.42) | 0.562 (1) | 0.454 |
Started using remote | 1.73 | (0.84, 3.56) | 2.212 (1) | 0.137 | 1.03 | (0.61, 1.78) | 0.015 (1) | 0.904 |
Never used or stopped using remote | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- | 1.00 | (ref.) | -- | -- |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mosavel, M.; Hoadley, A.; Akinkugbe, A.A.; Garcia, D.T.; Bass, S.B. Religiosity and COVID-19: Impact on Use of Remote Worship and Changes in Self-Reported Social Support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169891
Mosavel M, Hoadley A, Akinkugbe AA, Garcia DT, Bass SB. Religiosity and COVID-19: Impact on Use of Remote Worship and Changes in Self-Reported Social Support. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):9891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169891
Chicago/Turabian StyleMosavel, Maghboeba, Ariel Hoadley, Aderonke A. Akinkugbe, Dina T. Garcia, and Sarah Bauerle Bass. 2022. "Religiosity and COVID-19: Impact on Use of Remote Worship and Changes in Self-Reported Social Support" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 9891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169891