Correlation between religiosity, spirituality and quality of life in adolescents with and without cleft lip and palate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2498-3059Keywords:
Spirituality, Religion, Quality of Life, Adolescent, Cleft Lip, Cleft PalateAbstract
Objective: to correlate spirituality and religiosity with quality of life of adolescents with and without cleft lip and palate. Methods: cross-sectional and correlational study involving two groups: case group (n = 40) and comparison group (n = 40). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Bref were used for data collection. The Mann-Whitney, Chi-Square, Student’s t-test and Pearson’s correlation tests were used in the statistical analyses, with a significance level of 5% (p ≤ 0.05). Results: organizational religiosity and overall quality of life were significantly higher in the case group (p = 0.031 and p = 0.012, respectively). As for quality of life, the Environment Domain was significantly higher in the case group (p < 0.001). In the correlation between religiosity and spirituality, non-organizational religiosity had a strong correlation (r = 0.62) with organizational religiosity (p < 0.001). In the correlation of religiosity and spirituality with quality of life, only a moderate correlation between spirituality and overall quality of life was identified (r = -0.35, p = 0.026). Conclusion: there was no relationship of religiosity and spirituality with quality of life among adolescents with cleft lip and palate for most aspects evaluated.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.