Skip to main content
Download PDF

Religious affiliation and oral health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study based on a nationally representative survey in Germany

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 586 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Studies have shown an association between a person’s religiosity, and physical as well as psychological, health status. However, results differ between certain religious affiliations. While good oral health is important for our overall health and wellbeing, research on religious affiliation and oral health status, specifically oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), is lacking. Thus, our aim was to investigate the association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL.

Methods

A nationally representative online survey (n = 3,075 individuals) was conducted in August/September 2021. The mean age was 44.5 years (SD: 14.8 years, 18 to 70 years) and 51.1% of the individuals were female. OHRQoL was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G5). Religious affiliation served as key explanatory variable. Several covariates were included in regression analyses.

Results

Regressions revealed that compared to individuals with no religious affiliation, individuals belonging to Christianity had poorer OHRQoL (β = 0.31, p < 0.01), individuals belonging to Islam had poorer OHRQoL (β = 2.62, p < 0.01) and individuals belonging to another religious affiliation also had poorer OHRQoL (β = 1.89, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated an association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL. Individuals with specific religious affiliations should be addressed to avoid low OHRQoL.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The relationship between religion and health outcomes has been of longstanding interest in epidemiological research [1]. Religion is a multidimensional construct, generally associated with specific beliefs and practices. In order to assess religiosity, which refers to a person’s religious orientation, conviction and involvement, different aspects may be considered: religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, religious salience (or intrinsic religiosity), personal importance and commitment, and private religious practices [2,3,4]. Religious affiliation is defined as “the self-identified association of a person with a religion, denomination or sub-denominational religious group” [5].

Religiosity and health outcomes

Greater religious involvement, particularly greater personal commitment or religious salience and attendance at religious services, has been associated with higher levels of life satisfaction [6,7,8], health-related quality of life [9,10,11], better self-rated health [1, 6, 7, 9, 11,12,13,14,15], and a reduction in all-cause mortality risk [4, 16,17,18,19,20]. Furthermore, studies demonstrate a protective effect of religiosity on mental health outcomes [21, 22].

Good oral health is important for the maintenance of people’s overall health and well-being [23]. Overall, literature on the relationship between religion and oral health is scarce, with only a few studies reporting on the association between religiosity and oral health [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. For example, the frequency of attending religious services has been reported to be positively associated with preventive dental checkups [24, 29], better self-rated oral health [30] and better oral health outcomes [27, 28]. Furthermore, a study with 1,134 12-year-old Brazilian school children demonstrated that family religiosity, measured by attendance at religious services and private religious practices, was positively associated with school children’s oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) [25].

Religious affiliation and health

Despite the increasing interest in the role of religion and health, differences between religious groups (and people with no religious affiliation) are less frequently addressed. Studies report differing health outcomes [31,32,33,34,35,36,37] across various religious groups; and according to whether individuals belong to a minority or majority religious group in their respective country. In a study on religious affiliation and COVID-19-related mortality, those with Jewish affiliation demonstrated higher risk of death in comparison to all other groups (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and no religious affiliation) [38]. Mortality differences by religious groups were also reported by a cross-sectional study with a cohort of Black Protestants, Evangelic Protestants, Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Jews, and individuals with no affiliation [36], with. Mainline Protestants demonstrating a mortality advantage relative to the others [36]. Differences in illness-related behavior and utilization of health services have also been reported between different religious affiliations [26, 35, 39]. Variations in oral health status, specifically OHRQoL, between religious affiliations, however, have rarely been examined.

Study aim

In light of the limited knowledge on the association between religiosity and oral health, the aim of the current cross-sectional study is to investigate the association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL. For this purpose, we used data from a nationally representative survey among the general adult population in Germany.

Methods

Sample

Our study meets the STROBE guidelines for the reporting of cross-sectional studies (please see the Supplementary File 1).

We based our findings on data from a nationally representative survey. A total of n = 3,075 individuals aged 18 to 70 and residing in Germany were included in the study. The data was gathered between the end of August and the beginning of September of 2021. Respondi, a market research firm, recruited participants through its own online panel. In terms of age bracket, sex and federal state, recruitment was representative (quota-based). About 14,000 individuals were contacted in total. Because this was an online sample, no sample selection bias could be calculated. Missing values were not present in the main regression model.

All participants included in this study provided informed consent. Approval for the study was provided by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (number: LPEK-0356). Our study is in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Outcome: oral health-related quality of life

To measure OHRQoL, the established Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G5) [40], which consists of five items, was used. It is divided into four categories [41]: [1] oral function, [2] orofacial pain, [3] appearance, and [4] psychosocial impact. The items referring to “difficulty chewing foods” and “less flavor in food” correspond to the category oral function. The item referring to “painful aching” correspond to orofacial pain. The item referring to “uncomfortable about appearance” pertains to appearance. Lastly, the item referring to “difficulty doing your usual jobs” refers to psychosocial impact. Responses were made on a Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = hardly ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often). Thus, based on all five items, the total score ranges between 0 and 20. It should be noted that higher scores reflect lower OHRQoL. In our study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85. Former research has also shown good to very good psychometric properties of the OHIP-G5 [40].

Independent variables

Our independent variable of interest was religious affiliation. In accordance with other large cohort studies (e.g., German Ageing Survey), individuals were asked: “Which denomination do you belong to?” (Not belonging to any denomination; Christianity; Judaism; Islam; Buddhism; Hinduism; Other). Due to the number of cases, we categorized the participants into these four categories: No denomination, Christianity, Islam, and other.

In our regression analyses, several covariates were included: age, sex (men; women; diverse), marital status (distinguishing between: married, living together with spouse; married, not living together with spouse; widowed; single; divorced), employment status (full-time employed; retired; other), education (upper secondary school; qualification for applied upper secondary school; polytechnic secondary school; intermediate secondary school; lower secondary school; currently in school training/education; without school-leaving qualification), alcohol intake (daily; several times per week; once a week; 1–3 times per month; less often; never), smoking status (never smoker; no, not anymore; yes, sometimes; yes, daily), chronic diseases (absence of chronic diseases; presence of at least one chronic disease) and self-rated health (from 1 = very bad to 5 = very good).

Statistical analysis

Sample characteristics are displayed stratified by religious affiliation. Some exemplary effect sizes (Cohen’s d [42]) were calculated for religious affiliation and OHRQoL. In a further step, unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to investigate the association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL (also for the four categories (five items) as outcomes). The overall score served as primary outcome and the single items of the OHIP-G5 served as secondary outcomes.

In a sensitivity analysis, the main model was extended by adding migration background and income category as covariates. Migration background was quantified based on self-reports (no; yes). An explanation was added as follows: “A person has a migration background if he or she or at least one parent was not born with German citizenship”. Moreover, 13 income categories (based on the household net income) were used (under EUR 500, 500 EUR to lower than EUR 1000, EUR 1000 to lower than EUR 1500, EUR 1500 to lower than EUR 2000, EUR 2000 to lower than EUR 2500, EUR 2500 to lower than EUR 3000, EUR 3000 to lower than EUR 3500, EUR 3500 to lower than EUR 4000, EUR 4000 to lower than EUR 4500, EUR 4500 to lower than EUR 5000, EUR 5000 to lower than EUR 6000, EUR 6000 to lower than EUR 8000, EUR 8000 or more).

The significance level was set at p < 0.05. For the statistical analyses, Stata 16.1 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas) was used.

Results

Sample characteristics stratified by religious affiliation and effect sizes

In the total sample, the mean age was 44.5 years (18 to 70 years; Standard Deviation (SD): 14.8 years), with 51.1% being female. Sample characteristics stratified by religious affiliation are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample characteristics stratified by religious affiliation (n = 3,075)
Full size table

Individuals without religious affiliation had a mean OHRQoL score of 2.0 (SD: 3.1), individuals belonging to Christianity had a mean OHRQoL score of 2.2 (SD: 3.4), individuals belonging to Islam had a mean OHRQoL score of 4.7 (SD: 5.3), and individuals belonging to another religious affiliation had a mean OHRQoL score of 3.9 (SD: 4.5). Further details (e.g., for the dimensions) are provided in Table 1.

With respect to effect sizes (Cohen’s d); individuals without religious affiliation had a better OHRQoL (Cohen’s d=-0.07) compared to individuals belonging to Christianity for example. Such an effect size can be considered as negligible. Another example: Individuals without religious affiliation had a better OHRQoL (Cohen’s d=-0.86) compared to individuals belonging to Islam. This difference can be considered as large.

Regression analysis

Results of multiple linear regressions are given in Table 2 (unadjusted) and in Table 3 (adjusted). Due to the higher meaningfulness of the adjusted results, in this section we focus on reporting the results of the adjusted regressions (Table 3). However, the unadjusted results can be found in detail in Table 2.

Table 2 Religious affiliation and oral health-related quality of life. Findings of linear regressions (unadjusted)
Full size table
Table 3 Religious affiliation and oral health-related quality of life. Findings of multiple linear regressions
Full size table

In Table 3, the R² value was 0.10 (with OHIP-G5 score as outcome). Regressions revealed that compared to individuals without religious affiliation, individuals belonging to Christianity had higher OHIP-G5 scores (β = 0.31, p < 0.01). It is worth repeating that higher OHIP-G5 scores reflect a lower OHRQoL. Moreover, compared to individuals without religious affiliation, individuals belonging to Islam had higher OHIP-G5 scores (β = 2.62, p < 0.01) and individuals belonging to another religious affiliation also had higher OHIP-G5 scores (β = 1.89, p < 0.01). When the four categories ([1] oral function, [2] orofacial pain, [3] appearance, and [4] psychosocial impact) served as outcome measures, comparable findings were observed in terms of significance. Please see Table 3 for further details.

In a sensitivity analysis, the main model was extended by adding migration background and income category (please see the Supplementary File 2). However, in terms of significance and effect size, the association between religious affiliation and the outcomes remained very similar.

Discussion

Main findings

Using data from a large representative survey, our aim was to investigate the association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL. Regressions revealed that compared to individuals without religious affiliation, individuals belonging to Christianity, Islam or another religious affiliation had poorer OHRQoL. Our study adds to research on religion and oral health, with this study being the first to examine the association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL in adults.

Previous research and possible explanations

The extent to which one belongs or identifies, and is involved, with a particular religion or religious group may inadvertently define a lifestyle that affects one’s health. For example, the majority of religious institutions prohibit or discourage behaviors that are damaging to one’s health (e.g. alcohol consumption) and instead endorse health-promoting behaviors in accordance with their religious beliefs [19, 39, 43,44,45,46,47,48]. Overall, religious activities, organizational activities (e.g. going to church) or private practices (e.g. private prayer) and religious commitment have been described as an important feature of bonding, coping with stress or illness and encouraging healthy behavior, which in turn might explain better mental and physical health outcomes, as well as the inverse association between religiosity and all-cause mortality reported by some studies [11, 14,15,16,17,18, 49,50,51]. However, some studies also report on the negative impacts of religiosity on health outcomes [7, 52,53,54,55,56,57]. Religious struggle (e.g. feelings of abandonment by God or of being punished due to a lack of religious devotion, questioning of beliefs, or conflict with religious others) may contribute to illness and be a predictor of increased risk of death [53] and negative mental health outcomes [54, 55, 58]. In a study among Greek Orthodox Christians, higher frequency of private religious practices was positively associated with levels of anxiety [7].

In contrast to many previous studies that have reported a positive association between aspects of religiosity and health-related quality of life, we found that OHRQoL was best in non-affiliated individuals. It has been theorized that people with religious affiliation might be less likely to seek health care, possibly because of a tendency to defer control over one’s health to God or another higher power, or by seeing religion as intervention in place of treatment, which might negatively affect utilization patterns [52, 56, 59]. Non-utilization patterns have been associated with poorer oral health outcomes, which affect OHRQoL [60,61,62]. According to a study by Christy and colleagues [63] on psychosocial variables that predict being at risk for low health literacy, the authors found that greater reliance on religious beliefs for medical decision-making was significantly associated with being at risk for low health literacy. Lower health literacy is not just associated with poorer oral hygiene behaviors and oral health outcomes [64,65,66], but also lower OHRQoL [67, 68]. This might be a possible explanation as to why study participants with no religious affiliation had higher OHRQoL; however, further longitudinal data would be helpful in testing this hypothesis.

Previous research has shown that health outcomes and health behaviors differ depending on the religion to which the participant belongs [32, 34, 38, 69]. We found one other study that compared the OHRQoL between participants associated with different religious affiliations [70]. In their cross-sectional study among Ethiopian special needs students, the authors found that students affiliated with the Orthodox religion, one of the Christian churches in Ethiopia, had better OHRQoL compared to those affiliated with all other religions (Catholic, Muslim and Protestant). Similar to our results, Muslim affiliated students scored highest in the assessment, indicating lower OHRQoL. The authors, however, did not include people with no religious affiliation in their study.

As 6.5% of the total population, Muslims represent a minority religious group in Germany [71]. Empirical research shows that Muslims in particular often face discrimination due to their religious background [72]. Health disadvantages among minority groups were also reported elsewhere [34]. When it comes to oral health, research shows that Christian affiliated individuals are more likely to use oral health care facilities than people with other affiliations [26] and report better oral health behavior than Muslims [33]. The Muslim population in Germany has almost exclusively of a migration background [71]. Recent studies showed that people with a migration background in Germany demonstrated poorer oral health literacy levels and oral health status than people without a migration background [73, 74]. Another possible explanation for the differences in OHRQoL in our study might be the lack of knowledge and understanding of the specific needs of Muslim patients among Western healthcare providers [75]. Religious groups not only share beliefs, but most likely also ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic similarities, that should also be considered. This leads to the clinical implication that cross-cultural knowledge, which takes religious dimensions into account, is necessary to adopt culturally acceptable behaviors, strengthen patient-provider relationships and optimize therapeutic outcomes [75].

Overall, it is important to note that all religions are extremely diverse and comprised of an extremely heterogeneous group. Additionally, being affiliated with a religion does not necessarily determine a person’s personal religious conviction or that one must actively perform religious practices. For example, using data from the General Social Survey-National Death Index, Kim and colleagues found that while affiliation with a religion corresponded to the strength of religiosity for some religious groups, it did not for others [32]. Data on private or personal aspects of religiosity (e.g. religious importance or religious salience) as well as public aspects (e.g. attendance at religious services) was not captured by our study. This may account for the differing findings to those of previous research.

Strengths and limitations

We used data from a survey which reflects the distribution of age, sex and federal state in the general adult population in Germany. An established and valid tool with sufficient discriminative and evaluative psychometric properties was used to quantify our outcome measure (OHRQoL) [40]. A short version of the OHIP was also developed in Spanish and found to be a valid and reliable instrument [76]. Moreover, in our regression analyses, we adjusted for various covariates.

Due to the rising number of migrants and asylum seekers from countries with a large Muslim population, such as Turkey, Syria or Afghanistan, the number of Islam affiliated people in Germany is rising. However, because of their migration status, German language skills among this subpopulation may be lacking. The result of a language screening test in Hamburg showed, for example, that 31% of the Turkish migrants of the so-called first generation (“guest workers”) have no German language skills [77]. The OHIP-G5 questionnaire was only available in the German language for the survey participants. This means that individuals with certain religious affiliations may be underrepresented in our study.

The only aspect of religion investigated is religious affiliation. Other aspects relevant to research in this field, such as frequency of attending religious services, personal involvement and belief as well as religious practices, are not taken into account. Lastly, our current study is a cross-sectional one – with the known limitation regarding causality.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated an association between religious affiliation and OHRQoL. We found that individuals affiliated with one of the religious denominations (Christianity, Islam, Other) had poorer OHRQoL than those without religious affiliation. Thus, individuals with certain religious affiliations should be specifically addressed to avoid low OHRQoL. However, due to the heterogeneity of religious groups, and as the measurability and operationalization of ‘religion’ remains a problem, additional aspects of religiosity should be considered. Overall, further research on health and religious affiliation is warranted. We conclude that a more culturally sensitive approach to oral health promotion, which takes account of religious dimensions of health behaviour, must be adopted.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to legal restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

e.g.:

exempli gratia (lat.)

etc.:

et cetera (lat.)

OHRQoL:

Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

OHIP:

Oral Health Impact Profile

SD:

Standard Deviation

References

  1. Koenig H, Koenig HG, King D, Carson VB. Handbook of religion and health. Oup Usa; 2012.

  2. Hill PC, Pargament KI, Hood RW, McCullough J, Swyers ME, Larson JP. Conceptualizing Religion and spirituality: points of commonality, points of departure. J Theory Social Behav. 2000;30(1):51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koenig HG, Al Zaben F, Khalifa DA, Al Shohaib S. Chapter 19 - measures of religiosity. In: Boyle GJ, Saklofske DH, Matthews G, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. San Diego: Academic Press; 2015. 530–61.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Chida Y, Steptoe A, Powell LH. Religiosity/Spirituality and mortality: a systematic quantitative review. Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(2):81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. NHS. Religious Affiliation NHS Data Model and Dictionary. : NHS England; [26/06/2023]. Available from: https://www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/nhs_business_definitions/religious_affiliation.html.

  6. Krause N. Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003;58(3):160–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leondari A, Gialamas V. Religiosity and psychological well-being. Int J Psychol. 2009;44(4):241–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yaden DB, Batz-Barbarich CL, Ng V, Vaziri H, Gladstone JN, Pawelski JO, et al. A Meta-analysis of Religion/Spirituality and life satisfaction. J Happiness Stud. 2022;23(8):4147–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdala G, Kimura M, Koenig H, Reinert K, Horton K. Religiosity and quality of life in older adults: literature review. Life Style. 2015;2:25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borges CC, dos Santos PR, Alves PM, Borges RCM, Lucchetti G, Barbosa MA, et al. Association between spirituality/religiousness and quality of life among healthy adults: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mirghafourvand M, Charandabi SM, Sharajabad FA, Sanaati F. Religious practice and health-related quality of life in iranian adolescent girls. J Relig Health. 2018;57(3):796–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Idler EL, McLaughlin J, Kasl S. Religion and the quality of life in the last year of life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64(4):528–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maselko J, Kubzansky LD. Gender differences in religious practices, spiritual experiences and health: results from the US General Social Survey. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(11):2848–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and health: the research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry. 2012;2012:278730.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mosqueiro BP, da Rocha NS, Fleck MP. Intrinsic religiosity, resilience, quality of life, and suicide risk in depressed inpatients. J Affect Disord. 2015;179:128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruce MA, Martins D, Duru K, Beech BM, Sims M, Harawa N, et al. Church attendance, allostatic load and mortality in middle aged adults. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(5):e0177618.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Li S, Stampfer MJ, Williams DR, VanderWeele TJ. Association of Religious Service Attendance with Mortality among Women. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):777–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Strawbridge WJ, Cohen RD, Shema SJ, Kaplan GA. Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(6):957–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Cohen RD, Kaplan GA. Religious attendance increases survival by improving and maintaining good health behaviors, mental health, and social relationships. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23(1):68–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Musick MA, House JS, Williams DR. Attendance at religious services and mortality in a national sample. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45(2):198–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Braam AW, Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality and depression in prospective studies: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2019;257:428–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawrence RE, Oquendo MA, Stanley B. Religion and suicide risk: a systematic review. Arch Suicide Res. 2016;20(1):1–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Botelho J, Mascarenhas P, Viana J, Proença L, Orlandi M, Leira Y, et al. An umbrella review of the evidence linking oral health and systemic noncommunicable diseases. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):7614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Jordão LM, Saraiva LM, Sheiham A, Freire MC. Relationship between rates of attending religious services and oral health in brazilian adolescents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014;42(5):420–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Menegazzo GR, Sfreddo CS, Marquezan PK, Ramadan YH, Ardenghi TM. Family religiosity and oral Health Related Quality of Life: a Multilevel analysis in brazilian schoolchildren. Braz Dent J. 2018;29(4):381–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Varenne B, Petersen PE, Fournet F, Msellati P, Gary J, Ouattara S, et al. Illness-related behaviour and utilization of oral health services among adult city-dwellers in Burkina Faso: evidence from a household survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zini A, Sgan-Cohen HD, Marcenes W. Is religiosity related to periodontal health among the adult jewish population in Jerusalem? J Periodontal Res. 2012;47(4):418–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zini A, Sgan-Cohen HD, Marcenes W. Religiosity, spirituality, social support, health behaviour and dental caries among 35- to 44-year-old Jerusalem adults: a proposed conceptual model. Caries Res. 2012;46(4):368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Felix Aaron K, Levine D, Burstin HR. African american church participation and health care practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):908–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Finlayson TL, Williams DR, Siefert K, Jackson JS, Nowjack-Raymer R. Oral health disparities and psychosocial correlates of self-rated oral health in the National Survey of American Life. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1Suppl 1):246–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aksoy O, Bann D, Fluharty ME, Nandi A. Religiosity and Mental Wellbeing among Members of Majority and Minority Religions: findings from understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;191(1):20–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim J, Smith TW, Kang JH. Religious Affiliation, Religious Service Attendance, and Mortality. J Relig Health. 2015;54(6):2052–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kodzi IA, Obeng Gyimah S, Emina J, Chika Ezeh A. Religious involvement, social engagement, and subjective health status of older residents of informal neighborhoods of Nairobi. J Urban Health. 2011;88(Suppl 2):370–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lu Y, Yang XY. Health Disparities between Religious Majority and Minority: a cross-national analysis. Rev Religious Res. 2022;64(4):771–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schlundt DG, Franklin MD, Patel K, McClellan L, Larson C, Niebler S, et al. Religious affiliation, health behaviors and outcomes: Nashville REACH 2010. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32(6):714–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sullivan AR. Mortality differentials and Religion in the U.S.: Religious Affiliation and Attendance. J Sci Study Relig. 2010;49(4):740–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Tan MM, Su TT, Ting RS-K, Allotey P, Reidpath D. Religion and mental health among older adults: ethnic differences in Malaysia. Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(11):2116–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gaughan CH, Ayoubkhani D, Nafilyan V, Goldblatt P, White C. Religious affiliation and COVID-19-related mortality: a retrospective cohort study of prelockdown and postlockdown risks in England and Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75(6):509–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reindl Benjamins M, Brown C. Religion and preventative health care utilization among the elderly. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(1):109–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. John MT, Miglioretti DL, LeResche L, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Micheelis W. German short forms of the oral Health Impact Profile. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;34(4):277–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. John M, Omara M, Su N, List T, Sekulic S, Häggman-Henrikson B, et al. Recommendations for use and scoring of oral health impact profile versions. J Evidence-Based Dent Pract. 2022;22(1):101619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: [Hillsdale. NJ u.a.]: Erlbaum; 1988;567.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Holt CL, Clark EM, Roth DL. Positive and negative religious beliefs explaining the Religion-Health connection among African Americans. Int J Psychol Relig. 2014;24(4):311–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gillum RF. Frequency of attendance at religious services and cigarette smoking in american women and men: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Prev Med. 2005;41(2):607–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hodge DR, Cardenas P, Montoya H. Substance use: spirituality and religious participation as protective factors among rural youths. Social Work Research. 2001;25(3):153–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Martinez EZ, Giglio FM, Terada NAY, da Silva AS, Zucoloto ML. Smoking prevalence among users of primary Healthcare units in Brazil: the role of religiosity. J Relig Health. 2017;56(6):2180–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mason MJ, Schmidt C, Mennis J. Dimensions of religiosity and access to religious social capital: correlates with substance use among urban adolescents. J Prim Prev. 2012;33(5–6):229–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pitel L, Madarasova Geckova A, Kolarcik P, Halama P, Reijneveld SA, van Dijk JP. Gender differences in the relationship between religiosity and health-related behaviour among adolescents. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dolcos F, Hohl K, Hu Y, Dolcos S. Religiosity and resilience: cognitive reappraisal and coping self-efficacy mediate the link between Religious Coping and Well-Being. J Relig Health. 2021;60(4):2892–905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ten Kate J, 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(2):135–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Cotton S, Zebracki K, Rosenthal SL, Tsevat J, Drotar D. Religion/spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: a review. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38(4):472–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mitchell J, Lannin DR, Mathews HF, Swanson MS. Religious beliefs and breast cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2002;11(10):907–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pargament KI, Koenig HG, Tarakeshwar N, Hahn J. Religious struggle as a predictor of mortality among medically ill elderly patients: a 2-year longitudinal study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(15):1881–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith TB, McCullough ME, Poll J. Religiousness and depression: evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:614–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Trenholm P, Trent J, Compton WC. Negative religious conflict as a predictor of panic disorder. J Clin Psychol. 1998;54(1):59–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vigliotti V, Taggart T, Walker M, Kusmastuti S, Ransome Y. Religion, faith, and spirituality influences on HIV prevention activities: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(6):e0234720.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Cohen RD, Roberts RE, Kaplan GA. Religiosity buffers effects of some stressors on depression but exacerbates others. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1998;53(3):118–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ano GG, Vasconcelles EB. Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61(4):461–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schieman S. The religious role and the sense of Personal Control*. Sociol Relig. 2008;69(3):273–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Goswami S, Tseveenjav B, Kaila M. Non-utilization of oral health services and associated factors among children and adolescents: an integrative review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2023;81(2):105–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. John MT. Foundations of oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Rehabil. 2020.

  62. Maffioletti F, Vettore MV, Rebelo M, Herkrath F, Queiroz A, Herkrath AP, et al. Predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics of dental services utilization among socially deprived schoolchildren. J Public Health Dent. 2020;80(2):97–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Christy SM, Gwede CK, Sutton SK, Chavarria E, Davis SN, Abdulla R, et al. Health literacy among medically Underserved: the role of demographic factors, Social Influence, and religious beliefs. J Health Communication. 2017;22(11):923–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Baskaradoss JK. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health status. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Ueno M, Takeuchi S, Oshiro A, Kawaguchi Y. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health behaviors and clinical status in japanese adults. J Dent Sci. 2013;8(2):170–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Batista MJ, Lawrence HP, Sousa M. Oral health literacy and oral health outcomes in an adult population in Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2017;18(1):60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Bado FMR, De Checchi MHR, Cortellazzi KL, Ju X, Jamieson L, Mialhe FL. Oral health literacy, self-rated oral health, and oral health-related quality of life in brazilian adults. Eur J Oral Sci. 2020;128(3):218–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Divaris K, Lee JY, Baker AD, Vann WF. Jr. The relationship of oral health literacy with oral health-related quality of life in a multi-racial sample of low-income female caregivers. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Borges M, Lucchetti G, Leão FC, Vallada H, Peres MFP. Religious affiliations Influence Health-Related and general decision making: a brazilian Nationwide Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6).

  70. Tefera AT, Girma B, Adane A, Muche A, Ayele TA, Getahun KA, et al. Oral health-related quality of life and oral hygiene status among special need school students in amhara region, Ethiopia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023;21(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Pfündel K, Stichs A, Tanis K. Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland 2020. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge; 2020.

  72. Unser A, Ziebertz H-G. Human Rights and Religion in Germany. In: Ziebertz H-G, Črpić G, editors. Religion and Human Rights: an International Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015;61–83.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Aarabi G, Reissmann DR, Seedorf U, Becher H, Heydecke G, Kofahl C. Oral health and access to dental care - a comparison of elderly migrants and non-migrants in Germany. Ethn Health. 2018;23(7):703–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Spinler K, Weil M-T, Valdez R, Walther C, Dingoyan D, Seedorf U, et al. Mundgesundheitskompetenz von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund – Erste Auswertungen der MuMi-Studie. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2021;64(8):977–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Sirois ML, Darby M, Tolle S. Understanding muslim patients: cross-cultural dental hygiene care. Int J Dent Hyg. 2013;11(2):105–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Castrejón-Pérez RC, Borges-Yáñez SA. Derivation of the short form of the oral Health Impact Profile in Spanish (OHIP-EE-14). Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):155–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kofahl CME, Kalvelage B. Diabetesmanagment bei türkischstämmigen Zuwanderern. Diabetes, Stoffwechsel und Herz. 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of UKE - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf and DFG ? German Research Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ghazal Aarabi

    Present address: Department of Periodontics, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

  2. Nina Moszka and Ghazal Aarabi shared first.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontics, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Nina Moszka & Berit Lieske

  2. Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, Hamburg, Germany

    Hans-Helmut König, Benedikt Kretzler, Larissa Zwar & André Hajek

Authors
  1. Nina Moszka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ghazal Aarabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Berit Lieske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans-Helmut König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benedikt Kretzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Larissa Zwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. André Hajek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.H., H.-H.K., L.Z. and B.K. made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. A.H., N.M. and G.A. have analysed and interpreted the surveys’ data. N.M., G.A. and A.H. were major contributors in writing the manuscript. B.L. substantively revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ghazal Aarabi or André Hajek.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval for the study was provided by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (number: LPEK-0356). Our study is in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants included in this study provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moszka, N., Aarabi, G., Lieske, B. et al. Religious affiliation and oral health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study based on a nationally representative survey in Germany. BMC Oral Health 23, 586 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03265-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03265-8

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us