Spiritual Well-Being and Its Association with Coronary Artery Disease
- PDF / 567,532 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 66 Downloads / 170 Views
Spiritual Well‑Being and Its Association with Coronary Artery Disease Rodrigo de Eston Armond1 · Jane de Eston Armond1 · Tulio Konstantyner2 · Cintia Leci Rodrigues1 Accepted: 16 October 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of mortality in the world, generating important socioeconomic and cultural impacts. Spirituality has been associated with the main risk factors for acute myocardial infarction, influencing lifestyle, and drug treatment compliance. Estimate the level of spiritual well-being and its association with coronary artery disease. We conducted a case–control study with 88 adults (42 cases and 46 controls) individually interviewed. Using a spiritual well-being scale and collecting socioeconomic and demographic information. We compared groups by Chi-square and Mann–Whitney tests. Friedman’s analysis of variance was used to evaluate the differences between the values assigned to the scale items in each group. Statistically, there was no significant difference between categories and levels of spiritual well-being in any of the groups. Both had high rates, driven by the high level of religious well-being. There was no difference between the rates attributed to the items on the subscale of religious well-being, in the case or control groups (p = 0.959 and p = 0.817). However, the existential well-being subscale revealed variability between the scores attributed to each item in both groups (p 8
15
35.7
13
28.3
Low
1
2.4
1
2.2
Moderate
4
9.5
5
10.9
High
37
88.1
40
87.0
Low
0
0.0
0
0.0
Moderate
20
47.3
21
45.7
High
22
52.4
25
54.3
Low
0
0.0
0
0.0
Moderate
13
26.2
9
19.6
High
31
73.8
37
80.4
0.331
Years of study 0.453
RWB 0.977
EWB 0.853
SWB 0.459
MW minimum wage, RWB religious well-being, EWB existential well-being, SWB spiritual well-being *Chi-square test
(p = 0.959) or the control group (p = 0.8170). This same analysis of the EWB scale items (11 × 12 × 13 × 14 × 15 × 16 × 17 × 18 × 19 × 20), resulted in a statistically significant difference (p
Data Loading...
