Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

There is a complex relationship between health and religiosity. People may use religion to cope with difficulties and uncertainties in their life – such as induced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims:

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between religious coping, care burden and psychological distress among caregivers during COVID-19 in Pakistan.

Method:

We conducted a cross-sectional survey in Pakistan. We used the Religious Coping Scale (RCOPE), Care Burden Scale (CB), and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to measure psychological stress from 303 caregivers. Data were analyzed using a hierarchical linear regression model for each of the three outcome variables, which are depression, anxiety, and stress. This analysis allows to investigate whether adding variables significantly improves a model’s ability to predict the criterion variable.

Results:

The findings reveal that emotional care burden, physical care burden, negative religious coping, and social care burden explain a significant amount of the variance of three components of psychological distress among caregivers.

Conclusions:

Health experts, psychologists, and policymakers can make better strategies to combat pandemics like COVID-19 by incorporating religious coping methods.

Keywords

Religion tradition informal care caregiving

Background

In some societies, the influence of religion on social life is beyond question (Roof & McKinney, 1987, p. 103). Because of its function, religion has been an important topic of interest and research for sociologists since sociology became a scientific discipline (Durkheim, 1898; Weber, 1993). The way in which people respond to stress through their religion or relationship with religion has been conceptualized as religious coping (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005; K. Pargament et al., 2011). During the COVID-19 pandemic, religiosity was one important factor to maintain people’s well-being (Koenig, 2020; Rahman et al., 2020). Previous research has demonstrated that religious coping is helpful in order to calm the level of depression (Brelsford et al., 2015; Chong et al., 2019), anxiety (Dolcos et al., 2021), and stress (Pandey & Singh, 2019; Thomas & Barbato, 2020) by enabling people to deal with remorse (Knabb & Grigorian-Routon, 2014), accept the God’s will (K. I. Pargament et al., 1990), perceive illness positively (Phillips & Stein, 2007), and manage their fears (Menzies & Menzies, 2020; Rosmarin & Leidl, 2020; Vishkin et al., 2020). Religious coping acts as a shield, which reduces the negative effects of anxiety on people especially suffering from chronic illness (Tepper et al., 2001) and psychological distress (Trevino et al., 2012). Religious coping increases confidence and hope that, in turn, prevents the fear of death (Park, 2020).

The foundation for positive religious coping is to secure a relationship with the sacred (Bush et al., 1999; O’Brien et al., 2019), a positive point of view regarding the universe (Giordano et al., 2015), and, finally, a sense of spiritual connections with others (Allen & Lo, 2010; Ciarrocchi & Brelsford, 2009). Positive religious coping techniques in the context of life stressors have been associated with improved well-being and individual growth (Counted et al., 2022). However, religious coping is not always positive. Negative religious coping also exists (K. I. Pargament et al., 1998) reflecting a complex relationship with religion, a threatening point of the world’s view regarding religion that negative coping creates major stress issues and increased religious/spiritual struggles of the individuals (Abu-Raiya et al., 2015). Negative religious coping, as opposed to positive religious coping, is associated with those who suffered from mental health issues (Gerber et al., 2011; Vitorino et al., 2019).

Gartner et al. (1991) explained that there is a complex relationship between health and religiosity, often to the extent that many different aspects of religiosity are significant predictors that increase the level of anxiety rather than reduce it (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Seybold & Hill, 2001). People usually look to religion to cope with difficulties and uncertainties in their life (Folkman, 2013; Krause et al., 2002) and they often become more religious when they face challenges in their life, such as a serious illness (Koenig & Koenig, 2008, p. 23), the death of a family member (Chapple et al., 2011), divorce (Beehr et al., 1995), severe accident (Pargament, 2001), and happening of natural calamities (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005; Bentzen, 2019).

Researchers figured out that COVID-19 patients often completely depend on care providers because of their breathing issues (Budnick et al., 2021), weakness (Chowdhury et al., 2020), and other medical confines (Keesara et al., 2020). Caregivers are frequently emotionally drained (Losada et al., 2022) and wish for escapism (Dubey et al., 2021) from the situation because they feel detachment (Anderson & Parmar, 2020), physical (Dhavale et al., 2020) as well as emotional suffering (Sun et al., 2020) due to their frenzied routine of constant care provision (Mohammadi et al., 2021). Care providers also bear social isolation (Pietrabissa et al., 2021), financial problems (Prime et al., 2020), limited social mobility (Binswanger et al., 2021) and lack of communication with other family members, friends and relatives (Mojtahedzadeh et al., 2021). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between religious coping, care burden and psychological distress among caregivers during COVID-19 in Pakistan, being an example for a traditionally oriented country.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a cross-sectional study in Muzaffarabad City, which is the capital of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State. The area was selected because there are only two state hospitals (Combined Military Hospital and Abbas Institute of Medical Sciences) which have official record of COVID-19 patients and can provide reliable contact information on patients and respondents (caregivers).

Sampling

The sample was selected through systematic sampling method (every ninth respondent from the list provided by the hospitals). The total cases until March 2021 were 3,429,¹ so by using Taro Yamani’s formula (Yamane, 1973) a sample size of 358 was calculated to conduct the current research:

n = \frac{N}{1 + N {(e)}^{2}}

n = s a m p l e s i z e

N = p o p u l a t i o n s i z e

e = m a r g i n o f e r r o r (0.05)

Research instruments

Data was collected from caregivers’ of COVID-19 patients residing in Muzaffarabad by a structured interview schedule. The research tool was divided into four parts:

A. Demographic profile: We assessed respondent’s gender, marital status, family system, residential status, relationship with patient, and educational level.

B. Religious Coping (RCOPE): The Religious Coping scale consists of 14 items with seven Positive Religious Coping (PRC) and seven Negative Religious Coping (NRC) statements (K. I. Pargament et al., 1998). Cronbach’s alpha value of this scale was found as 0.89.

C. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21): DASS-21 consists of 21 questions on depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The validity and reliability of DASS-21 have been confirmed in previous studies (Asghari et al., 2008; Dehghan & Memarian, 2013; Samani & Joukar, 2007). This study found the Cronbach’s alpha value as 0.92.

D. Care Burden Scale: The Care Burden Scale was developed by Novak and Guest (1989) and consists of 24 items which are divided into five subcategories: Time care burden, development care burden, physical care burden, social care burden, and emotional care burden. The reliability and validity of this scale was confirmed in previous research (Kücükgüclü et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2014). This study demonstrated the value of Cronbach’s alpha as .96.

The instruments were translated into Urdu Language. The Local Health Department and hospital authorities were asked to review the statements to avoid any conflict and be assured that the information collected does not include any confidential data. Furthermore, the respondents of the study were asked to read the items and raise their queries or confusions prior to completing the interview.

Ethical considerations

The present study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. During data collection, we strictly followed the standard operating procedures defined by the World Health Organization and Government of Pakistan. Written informed consent was taken after participants were briefed about the study. Respondents were authorized to terminate the interview at any stage if they feel uncomfortable with any of the statements. The respondents were ensured that no personal information is required for this study and also that the collected information does not involve any hidden or commercial purpose. The topic and research instruments were approved by the Ethical Review Board of SZABIST-Islamabad and formal permission was taken from the Health Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Results

Table 1 shows the demographic profile of respondents. The majority of caregivers (57.4%) was male. The data also reveal that 40.6% were single and 58.4% were married. Most were living in joint family system (56.8%) and in urban areas (56.8%). According to the relationship with patients, our study sample consisted of caregivers who were mainly daughters (29.4%), siblings (21.4%), either husband or wives (17.8%), and sons (15.8%).

Table 1.

Demographic profile of respondents (n = 358).

Variable	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	174	57.4
Female	129	42.6
Marital status
Single	123	40.6
Married	177	58.4
Widow	3	1.0
Family system
Nuclear	119	39.3
Joint	172	56.8
Extended	12	4.0
Residential status
Urban	172	56.8
Rural	131	43.2
Relationship with patient
Wife	20	6.6
Husband	34	11.2
Daughter	89	29.4
Son	48	15.8
Mother	22	7.3
Father	26	8.6
Sibling	64	21.1
Educational level
Illiterate	12	4.0
Primary or equivalent	27	8.9
Matriculation or equivalent	33	10.9
Intermediate or equivalent	70	23.1
Graduation or equivalent	76	25.1
Master	39	12.9
MS/M.Phil.	30	9.9
PhD	16	5.3

Depression

The findings presented in Table 2 reveal that emotional care burden, physical care burden, negative religious coping, and social care burden explain a significant amount of the variance of depression among caregivers of COVID-19 patients (F = 30.646, p < .001, R² = .291). Emotional care burden (β = .263, p < .001), physical care burden (β = .210, p < .001), negative religious coping (β = .191, p < .001), and social care burden (β = .141, p < .05) significantly positively predict depression among caregivers of COVID-19 patients. This mean that caregivers who used negative religious coping were suffering from depression consequently. Caregivers who faced emotional, physical, and social burden also faced depression while taking care of COVID-19 patients.

Table 2.

Predictors explaining the variance of depression among caregivers of COVID-19 patients.

	β (Standardized coefficients)
Predictors	1	2	3	4
Emotional care burden	.411***	.351***	.317***	.263***
Physical care burden	—	.272***	.254***	.210***
Negative religious coping	—	—	.201***	.191***
Social care burden	—	—	—	.141^*
F-test	61.101***	47.186***	38.334***	30.646***
R ²	.169	.239	.278	.291
Δ R²	.166	.234	.271	.282

Note. Excluded variables: Time care burden, Development care burden, Positive religious coping. Δ R² = R squared change.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Anxiety

Emotional care burden, physical care burden, negative religious coping, and social care burden explain a significant amount of the variance of anxiety among caregivers of COVID-9 patients (F = 20.464, p < .001, R² = .215). The analysis shows that physical care burden (β = .258, p < .001), emotional care burden (β = .131, p < .001), and negative religious coping (β = .159, p < .001) are positively predicting anxiety among caregivers of COVID-19 patients. This implies that the caregivers who used negative religious coping were suffering from anxiety. The caregivers who were having emotional and physical burden also faced anxiety while taking care of COVID-19 patients in the pandemic (Table 3).

Table 3.

Predictors explaining the variance of anxiety among caregivers of COVID-19 patients.

	β (Standardized coefficients)
Predictors	1	2	3	4
Physical care burden	.364***	.317***	.302***	.258***
Emotional care burden	—	.212***	.184**	.131***
Negative religious coping	—	—	.168***	.159***
Social care burden	—	—	—	.139
F-test	45.918	31.858	25.265	20.464***
R ²	.132	.175	.202	.215
Δ R²	.129	.170	.194	.205

Note. Excluded variables: Time care burden, Development care burden, Positive religious coping. Δ R² = R squared change.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Stress

The findings of Table 4 reveal that emotional care burden, physical care burden, negative religious coping, and social care burden explained a significant amount of the variance of stress among caregivers of COVID-19 patients (F = 22.861, p < .001, R² = .235). The analysis shows that social care burden (β = .180, p < .001), negative religious coping (β = .228, p < .001), physical care burden (β = .191, p < .001), and emotional care burden (β = .130, p < .001) are significantly positively predicting stress among caregivers of COVID-19 patients. This mean that the caregivers who used negative religious coping were suffering from stress resultantly. The caregivers who were having emotional, physical, and social burden also faced stress while taking care of COVID-19 patients.

Table 4.

Predictors explaining the variance of stress among caregivers of COVID-19 patients.

	β (Standardized coefficients)
Predictors	1	2	3	4
Social care burden	.358	.313***	.235***	.180***
Negative religious coping	—	.253***	.242***	.228***
Physical care burden	—	—	.195***	.191***
Emotional care burden	—	—	—	.130***
F-test	44.148	35.185	28.381	22.361***
R ²	.128	.190	.222	.235
Δ R²	.125	.185	.214	.225

Note. Excluded variables: Time care burden, Development care burden, Positive religious coping. Δ R² = R squared change.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

COVID-19 patients, their families and caregivers bear significant levels of psychological distress due to abnormal physical and mental states. This study aimed to figure out the effect of religious coping and care burden on psychological distress of the caregivers of COVID-19 patient. It found that religion plays a significant role as a coping strategy, particularly in terms of negative dimensions (i.e. negative religious coping increased psychological distress among respondents).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people adopted various measures to cope with their mental health challenges (Fullana et al., 2020). In this regard, religious coping remained a ubiquitous practice, particularly among traditional societies to seek protection (Meza, 2020), prevention (Ede & ZuokeKalu, 2021), and healing (Yoosefi Lebni et al., 2021) to overcome the psychological (Yıldırım et al., 2022), social (Fitri & Nashori, 2021) and behavioral problems (Cassell, 2020) among patients, caregivers and the general population.

COVID-19 has a negative impact on the psychological well-being of caregivers (Christner et al., 2021; Davidson et al., 2021), namely causing more psychological distress (J. Zhang et al., 2020). Within our study, for three components of psychological distress (i.e. depression, anxiety, and stress) the significant predictors were emotional care burden, physical care burden, and negative religion coping. These results imply that increasing emotional and psychical care burden on caregivers of COVID-19 patients increases depression, anxiety, and stress. Similarly, the increase in negative religious coping also creates psychological distress.

This may create a social gap between caregivers and the society, because caregivers face financial, emotional, and psychological problems to handle and respond in such a way that the patient and further family members remain comfortable. Caregivers of COVID-19 patients face severe levels of psychological distress because of the bad health of patients (Zhao et al., 2020) and also because of their own lives (Park, 2021) which remain in danger throughout the caring period (L. Zhang et al., 2021).

Religion is considered as strong agent of socialization, social support, and a process of healing, especially in traditional societies. Financial, psychological, emotional and social problems are often tackled by religious practices. During COVID-19, people observed religious practices as source of healing and meditation. It is not surprising that people have turned to religion for their comfort during the time of outbreak and people follow religion to overcome their fears (Wilson et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic poses a very severe amount of burden, particularly in terms of care of the patients with regards to the issues related to time management and limitations due to care of patients, development, physical movement, social and emotional involvement and activities.

When interpreting the results, one needs to keep in mind that all data is based on self-reports. It may be biased due to a selective sample and social desirability to answer the questions. Furthermore, it is cross-sectional data which does not allow to draw causal conclusions.

Conclusion

This study found high levels of depression, anxiety, and stress due to the burden of care and use of negative religious coping mechanisms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, care burden has significantly impacted on the lives of caregivers. Caregivers faced care burden of patients in terms of social, emotional, and physical burden. Being members of a religiously oriented society, the respondents of this study were inclined toward the confirmation of positive religious coping and the increase in psychological distress was found due to negative religious coping. The pandemic encouraged people to connect with religion and adopt the religious methods for healing and handling strategies especially for emotional, social and psychological problems.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None

Authors contributions

MAHR, SAM, MMM and FF contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection was performed by SAM. Data analysis was performed by MMM and MAHR. The first draft of the manuscript was prepared by MAHR. FF critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of SZABIST-Islamabad (Ref. No.: IERB(7)/SZABIST-ISL(SS)/1890103/200176).

Informed consent from participants

Written informed consent was taken from participants.

ORCID iD

Florian Fischer

Data availability

Data is available from corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

References

Abu-Raiya

Pargament

K. I.

Krause

Ironson

(2015). Robust links between religious/spiritual struggles, psychological distress, and well-being in a national sample of American adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(6), 565–575.

Allen

T. M.

C. C.

(2010). Religiosity, spirituality, and substance abuse. Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 433–459.

Anderson

Parmar

(2020). A tale of two solitudes experienced by Alberta family caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. University of Alberta. https://www.chpca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11

Ano

G. G.

Vasconcelles

E. B.

(2005). Religious coping and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 461–480.

Asghari

Saed

Dibajnia

(2008). Psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a non-clinical Iranian sample. International Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 82–102.

Beehr

T. A.

Johnson

L. B.

Nieva

(1995). Occupational stress: Coping of police and their spouses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 3–25.

Bentzen

J. S.

(2019). Why are some societies more religious than others? In Carvalho

J.-P.

Iyer

Rubin

(Eds.), Advances in the economics of religion (pp. 265–281). Springer.

Binswanger

Kohl

Behling

Noell

Hirsch

Hickmann

Tatagiba

M. S.

Tabatabai

Hippler

Renovanz

(2021). Neuro-oncological patients’ and caregivers’ psychosocial burden during the COVID-19 pandemic—A prospective study with qualitative content analysis. Psycho-oncology, 30(9), 1502–1513.

Brelsford

G. M.

Mondell

L. A.

Raldiris

Ramirez

(2015). Stress and negative religious coping in a community sample. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 34(2), 141–154.

10.

Budnick

Hering

Eggert

Teubner

Suhr

Kuhlmey

Gellert

(2021). Informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic perceive additional burden: Findings from an ad-hoc survey in Germany. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 353.

11.

Bush

E. G.

Rye

M. S.

Brant

C. R.

Emery

Pargament

K. I.

Riessinger

C. A.

(1999). Religious coping with chronic pain. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 24(4), 249–260.

12.

Cassell

A. K.

(2020). Spiritual and religious coping: Does it impact counseling outcomes. Regent University.

13.

Chapple

Swift

Ziebland

(2011). The role of spirituality and religion for those bereaved due to a traumatic death. Mortality, 16(1), 1–19.

14.

Chong

L. T.

Chong

M. C.

Tang

L. Y.

Ramoo

Chui

P. L.

Hmwe

N. T. T.

(2019). The relationship between psychological distress and religious practices and coping in Malaysian parents of children with Thalassemia. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 48, e15–e20.

15.

Chowdhury

M. J. M.

Ferdous

M. S.

Biswas

Chowdhury

Muthukkumarasamy

(2020). COVID-19 contact tracing: Challenges and future directions. IEEE Access, 8, 225703–225729.

16.

Christner

Essler

Hazzam

Paulus

(2021). Children’s psychological well-being and problem behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online study during the lockdown period in Germany. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253473.

17.

Ciarrocchi

J. W.

Brelsford

G. M.

(2009). Spirituality, religion, and substance coping as regulators of emotions and meaning making: Different effects on pain and joy. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 30(1), 24–36.

18.

Counted

Pargament

K. I.

Bechara

A. O.

Joynt

Cowden

R. G.

(2022). Hope and well-being in vulnerable contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does religious coping matter? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17, 70–81.

19.

Davidson

Schmidt

Mallar

Mahmoud

Rothenberg

Hernandez

Berkovits

Jent

Delamater

Natale

(2021). Risk and resilience of well-being in caregivers of young children in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(2), 305–313.

20.

Dehghan

Memarian

(2013). Abundance of stress, anxiety and depression in multiple sclerosis patients. Alborz University Medical Journal, 2(2), 82–88.

21.

Dhavale

Koparkar

Fernandes

(2020). Palliative care interventions from a social work perspective and the challenges faced by patients and caregivers during COVID-19. Indian Journal of Palliative Care, 26(Suppl 1), S58–S62.

22.

Dolcos

Hohl

Dolcos

(2021). Religiosity and resilience: Cognitive reappraisal and coping self-efficacy mediate the link between religious coping and well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 60, 2892–2905.

23.

Dubey

Sengupta

Ghosh

Dubey

M. J.

Chatterjee

Das

Benito-León

(2021). COVID-19 Pandemic, Personality and Geriatric Population: Proposed Pragmatism.

24.

Durkheim. (1898). Minor editorials. University of Chicago Press.

25.

Ede

V. I.

ZuokeKalu

(2021). Coping with COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: The religious coping option. Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 39–55.

26.

Fitri

R. K.

Nashori

(2021). Islamic religious coping, partner support and parenting stress on mothers who accompany their children study from home in a covid-19 pandemic situation. Psikis: Jurnal Psikologi Islami, 7(1), 45–61.

27.

Folkman

(2013). Stress, coping, and hope Psychological aspects of cancer (pp. 119–127). Springer.

28.

Folkman

Moskowitz

J. T.

(2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774.

29.

Fullana

M. A.

Hidalgo-Mazzei

Vieta

Radua

(2020). Coping behaviors associated with decreased anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275, 80–81.

30.

Gartner

Larson

D. B.

Allen

G. D.

(1991). Religious commitment and Mental Health: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 6–25.

31.

Gerber

M. M.

Boals

Schuettler

(2011). The unique contributions of positive and negative religious coping to posttraumatic growth and PTSD. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(4), 298–307.

32.

Giordano

A. L.

Prosek

E. A.

Daly

C. M.

Holm

J. M.

Ramsey

Z. B.

Abernathy

M. R.

Sender

K. M.

(2015). Exploring the relationship between religious coping and spirituality among three types of collegiate substance abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(1), 70–79.

33.

Keesara

Jonas

Schulman

(2020). Covid-19 and health care’s digital revolution. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(23), e82.

34.

Knabb

J. J.

Grigorian-Routon

(2014). The role of experiential avoidance in the relationship between faith maturity, religious coping, and psychological adjustment among Christian university students. Mental Health Religion & Culture, 17(5), 458–469.

35.

Koenig

H. G.

(2020). Maintaining health and well-being by putting faith into action during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Religion and Health, 59(5), 2205–2214.

36.

Koenig

H. G.

Koenig

H. G.

(2008). Medicine, religion, and health: Where science and spirituality meet. Templeton Foundation Press.

37.

Krause

Liang

Shaw

B. A.

Sugisawa

Kim

H.-K.

Sugihara

(2002). Religion, death of a loved one, and hypertension among older adults in Japan. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(2), S96–S107.

38.

Kücükgüclü Esen

Yener

. (2009). The reliability and validity of the caregiver burden ınventory in Turkey. Journal of Neurological Sciences, 26(1), 60–73.

39.

Losada

Vara-García

Romero-Moreno

Barrera-Caballero

Pedroso-Chaparro

M. D. S.

Jiménez-Gonzalo

Fernandes-Pires

Cabrera

Gallego-Alberto

Huertas-Domingo

Mérida-Herrera

Olazarán-Rodríguez

Márquez-González

(2022). Caring for relatives with dementia in times of COVID-19: Impact on caregivers and care-recipients. Clinical Gerontologist, 45, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2021.1928356

40.

Lovibond

P. F.

Lovibond

S. H.

(1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343.

41.

Menzies

R. E.

Menzies

R. G.

(2020). Death anxiety in the time of COVID-19: Theoretical explanations and clinical implications. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 13, e19.

42.

Meza

(2020). In a pandemic are we more religious? Traditional Practices of Catholics and the COVID-19 in Southwestern Colombia. International Journal of Latin American Religions, 4(2), 218–234.

43.

Mohammadi

Farjam

Gholampour

Sohrabpour

Oshvandi

Bijani

(2021). Caregivers’ perception of the caring challenges in coronavirus crisis (COVID-19): A qualitative study. BMC Nursing, 20, 102.

44.

Mojtahedzadeh

Wirth

Nienhaus

Harth

Mache

(2021). Job demands, resources and strains of outpatient caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3684.

45.

Novak

Guest

(1989). Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory. The Gerontologist, 29(6), 798–803.

46.

O’Brien

Shrestha

Stanley

M. A.

Pargament

K. I.

Cummings

Kunik

M. E.

Fletcher

T. L.

Cortes

Ramsey

Amspoker

A. B.

(2019). Positive and negative religious coping as predictors of distress among minority older adults. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 34(1), 54–59.

47.

Pandey

Singh

(2019). Positive religious coping as a mechanism for enhancing job satisfaction and reducing work-family conflict: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion, 16(3), 314–338.

48.

Pargament. (2001). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford press.

49.

Pargament

Feuille

Burdzy

(2011). The brief RCOPE: Current psychometric status of a short measure of religious coping. Religions, 2(1), 51–76.

50.

Pargament

K. I.

Ensing

D. S.

Falgout

Olsen

Reilly

Van Haitsma

Warren

(1990). God help me: (I): Religious coping efforts as predictors of the outcomes to significant negative life events. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(6), 793–824.

51.

Pargament

K. I.

Smith

B. W.

Koenig

H. G.

Perez

(1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(4), 710–724.

52.

Park. (2020). Religiousness and meaning making following stressful life events The science of religion, spirituality, and existentialism (pp. 273–285). Elsevier.

53.

Park Park

S. S.

(2021). Caregivers’ mental health and somatic symptoms during COVID-19. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 76(4), e235–e240.

54.

Phillips

R. E.

III Stein

C. H.

(2007). God’s will, God’s punishment, or God’s limitations? Religious coping strategies reported by young adults living with serious mental illness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 529–540.

55.

Pietrabissa

Volpi

Bottacchi

Bertuzzi

Guerrini Usubini

Löffler-Stastka

Prevendar

Rapelli

Cattivelli

Castelnuovo

Molinari

Sartorio

(2021). The impact of social isolation during the covid-19 pandemic on physical and mental health: The lived experience of adolescents with obesity and their caregivers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 3026.

56.

Prime

Wade

Browne

D. T.

(2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643.

57.

Rahman

Mohd Noor

Kashim

Saari

C. Z.

Hasan

A. Z.

Pa’ad

N. S.

Mohammed

A. F.

(2020). Critical Review of the relationship between resilience, self-esteem and religiosity among the tabhligh during the fight of covid-19. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(5), 1136–1144.

58.

Roof

W. C.

McKinney

(1987). American mainline religion: Its changing shape and future. Rutgers University Press.

59.

Rosmarin

D. H.

Leidl

(2020). Spirituality, religion, and anxiety disorders. In Rosmarin

Koenig

(Eds.), Handbook of spirituality, religion, and mental health (pp. 41–60). Academic Press.

60.

Samani

Joukar

(2007). A study on the reliability and validity of the short form of the depression anxiety stress scale (DASS-21). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239.

61.

Seybold

K. S.

Hill

P. C.

(2001). The role of religion and spirituality in mental and physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 21–24.

62.

Sun

Wei

Shi

Jiao

Song

Wang

You

Liu

Wang

(2020). A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(6), 592–598.

63.

Tepper

Rogers

S. A.

Coleman

E. M.

Malony

H. N.

(2001). The prevalence of religious coping among persons with persistent mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(5), 660–665.

64.

Thomas

Barbato

(2020). Positive religious coping and mental health among Christians and Muslims in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Religions, 11(10), 498.

65.

Trevino

K. M.

Archambault

Schuster

Richardson

Moye

(2012). Religious coping and psychological distress in military veteran cancer survivors. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(1), 87–98.

66.

Vishkin

Schwartz

S. H.

Ben-Nun Bloom

Solak

Tamir

(2020). Religiosity and desired emotions: Belief maintenance or prosocial facilitation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1090–1106.

67.

Vitorino

L. M.

Low

Lucchetti

(2019). Is the physical environment associated with spiritual and religious coping in older age? Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Religion and Health, 58(5), 1648–1660.

68.

Wang

Xiao

L. D.

G.-P.

Ullah

De Bellis

(2014). Factors contributing to caregiver burden in dementia in a country without formal caregiver support. Aging & Mental Health, 18(8), 986–996.

69.

Weber

(1993). The sociology of religion. Beacon Press.

70.

Wilson

Boorstein

Hernández

Rozsa

(2020). Coronavirus creates conflict for churches, where gatherings can be dangerous but also provide solace. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/coronavirus-church-services-outbreak/2020/04/05/7f5b63cc-7773-11ea-90ad-819caa48d39fstory.html.

71.

Yamane

(1973). Statistics: An introduction analysis. Harper & Row.

72.

Yoosefi Lebni

Ziapour

Mehedi

Irandoost

S. F

. (2021). The role of clerics in confronting the COVID-19 crisis in Iran. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(4), 2387–2394.

73.

Yıldırım

Arslan

Alkahtani

A. M.

(2022). Do fear of COVID-19 and religious coping predict depression, anxiety, and stress among the Arab population during health crisis? Death Studies, 46, 2070–2076. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2021.1882617

74.

Zhang

Zeng

Zhang

Jiang

(2020). The differential psychological distress of populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 49–50.

75.

Zhang

M. T.

Guo

Zhu

Z. Y.

Peng

S. F.

Chen

Fan

Chen

(2021). Psychological distress and associated factors of the primary caregivers of offspring with eating disorder during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 58.

76.

Zhao

Ahmed

Faraz

N. A.

(2020). Caring for the caregiver during COVID-19 outbreak: Does inclusive leadership improve psychological safety and curb psychological distress? A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 110, 103725.

Religious coping,care burden and psychological distress among informal caregivers of COVID-19 patients: Results of a cross-sectional survey in Pakistan

Abstract

Background:

Aims:

Method:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Background

Methods

Study design

Sampling

Research instruments

Ethical considerations

Results

Depression

Anxiety

Stress

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors contributions

Conflict of interest

Funding

Ethical approval

Informed consent from participants

ORCID iD

Data availability

Notes

References