A meta-analytic exploration of associations between religious service attendance and sexual risk taking in adolescence and emerging adulthood

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Findings since 2000 about the association between the frequency of religious service attendance (formal religiosity) and sexual risk taking in adolescents and emerging adults were explored. A systematic literature search (April 2020) focused on articles with data on religiosity and age at sexual debut, number of sexual partners, condom use at most recent sexual intercourse, and consistent condom use. A total of 27 studies with 37,430 participants ( M _age = 18.4, range: 12–25, 43.5% male) were included. In random-effects meta-analysis, the link between formal religiosity and sexual risk taking was significant only for age at sexual debut (r = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.13) and the number of sexual partners ( r = −0.14, 95% CI = −0.19, −0.09). Weak associations between the constructs of interest indicate that formal religiosity is not sufficient to protect young people’s sexual health.

Related collections

Most cited references 81

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2012)

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

0 comments Cited 5190 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

Michael R. Borenstein, Larry Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins … (2010)

There are two popular statistical models for meta-analysis, the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model. The fact that these two models employ similar sets of formulas to compute statistics, and sometimes yield similar estimates for the various parameters, may lead people to believe that the models are interchangeable. In fact, though, the models represent fundamentally different assumptions about the data. The selection of the appropriate model is important to ensure that the various statistics are estimated correctly. Additionally, and more fundamentally, the model serves to place the analysis in context. It provides a framework for the goals of the analysis as well as for the interpretation of the statistics. In this paper we explain the key assumptions of each model, and then outline the differences between the models. We conclude with a discussion of factors to consider when choosing between the two models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.