Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 3, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(2):452-453; doi:10.1093/ije/dyi037
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/2/452    most recent
dyi037v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hummer, R. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hummer, R. A
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2005; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: Understanding religious involvement and mortality risk in the United States: comment on Bagiella, Hong, and Sloan

Robert A Hummer

Population Research Center and Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA. E-mail: rhummer@prc.utexas.edu

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

In high profile academic outlets and the popular press, Bagiella, Hong, and Sloan1 (hereafter BHS, based on the authorship of the article in this issue) have been very outspoken critics of the scientific literature on religion and health/mortality, as well as the implications that such literature may or may not have for the practice of health care and medicine in the United States.2–4 While praising a very limited number of empirical studies in the area, including mine, that have shown a protective relationship between public religious involvement and mortality, their essays have strongly critiqued much of the methodological work in the religion–health area and they have used such critiques as part of their rationale for efforts to keep religion out of medical and health care practice. Seemingly, . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
S. Ebrahim
Socioeconomic position (again), causes and confounding
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2005; 34(2): 237 - 238.
[Full Text] [PDF]