To identify potential protective mechanisms that might buffer the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on well-being, the current set of studies (N _{Study 1} = 1172, N _{Study 2} = 451) examined the roles of hope and religious coping (positive and negative) in promoting well-being during periods when stringent stay-at-home orders were implemented in Colombia and South Africa to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. After controlling for relevant sociodemographic characteristics (Studies 1 and 2), subjective health complaints, and sleep quality (Study 2), hope was positively associated with well-being and the relation between hope and well-being was moderated by religious coping. Whilst well-being was highest when levels of hope were high (irrespective of positive or negative religious coping levels), when reported hope was low, well-being tended to be higher when positive religious coping was high (Study 1) and negative religious coping was low (Study 2). Implications of the findings for maintaining well-being during a public health crisis are discussed.

Despite the increasing number of evidence-based research on relational spirituality (RS) and quality of life (QoL) in medical-health research, little is known about the links between RS and QoL outcomes and the mechanisms by which RS aspects are functionally tied to QoL. To determine how RS is perceived/positioned in relation to QoL, we (a) examined recent available data that identify and appraise the links between RS and QoL; (b) identified themes emerging from the association between RS and QoL, and (c) discussed the implications of the effects of RS on QoL outcomes. We conducted an integrative research review of English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 2007 to March 2017 which examined an association between RS and QoL, as identified from a search of three databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect. A total of 20 studies were analysed. Of these, twelve (60%) reported positive association between RS and QoL, three (15%) studies reported inverse associations, whereas five (25%) studies showed evidence of lack of association (with two out of the five studies showing an indirect association). Physical health and psychological functioning were the most researched domains of QoL, and some studies suggest an attachment-based model of RS in the last 10 years of RS and QoL research. Studies conducted with participants with serious illnesses ranging from dementia, cardiac arrest, and breast cancer reported no association between RS and physical health. Our review shows evidence of both the direct and/or indirect effects of RS on QoL as a possible spiritual coping model for complementary alternative health therapy, albeit occurring through several religious-related psychosocial conduits. RS appears to be associated with health benefits as indicated across QoL domains. General medical practitioners and other healthcare agencies could benefit from the understanding that a spiritual coping model could aid their patients, and therefore their clinical practices, in the healing process.

Suffering has been a topic of considerable discussion in the fields of medicine and palliative care, yet few studies have reported causal evidence linking the experience of suffering to health and well-being. In this three-wave prospective cohort study, we explore the potential psychological implications of suffering during the COVID-19 pandemic by examining relations among suffering, mental health, and psychological well-being in a sample of U.S. adults living with chronic health conditions. We analyzed data from n = 184 participants who completed assessments one month before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (February 2020) and then two months (April 2020) and four months later (May/June 2020). Analyses controlled for a range of factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, physical health, religious/spiritual factors, psychological characteristics, and prior values of the predictor and each of the outcomes assessed one month before the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of the primary analysis indicated that greater overall suffering assessed one month into the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with lower psychological well-being (β = -.17, 95% CI: -.29, -.05) and higher levels of anxiety (β = .27, 95% CI: .13, .41) and depression (β = .16, 95% CI: .03, .29) two months later. In a secondary analysis that explored anxiety, depression, and psychological well-being as candidate antecedents of suffering, depression assessed one month into the COVID-19 pandemic was most strongly associated with worse overall suffering two months later. We highlight the implications of the findings for high-risk populations who are suffering amidst the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential benefits of both integrating assessments of suffering into screening procedures and addressing experiences of suffering in mental health service settings are discussed.

The article is an attempt to make sense of the different interdisciplinary perspectives associated with people’s attachment to places with a view to construct a holistic template for understanding people-place relationships and experiences. The author took note of the theoretical contributions of Jorgensen & Stedman (2001), Scannell & Gifford (2010), and Seamon (2012, 2014) to construct an integrative framework for understanding emotional links to places and people’s perception and experience of places. This was done with the intention of illuminating the meaning of place and the different “places” people get attached to. The paper concludes by incorporating different place frameworks with the intention of establishing a holistic model for understanding the various attributes and perceptions of people-place relationships and experiences

Using data from a prospective cohort of US adults living with chronic illness (n = 184), we examined longitudinal associations between domains of resource loss assessed one month into the COVID-19 pandemic and suffering two months later. We also explored the role of positive religious coping in modifying relations between each type of resource loss and suffering, adjusting for a number of sociodemographics, chronic health conditions, religious/spiritual factors, psychological characteristics, and prior values of positive religious coping and suffering. Pandemic-related economic, interpersonal, and psychological (but not physical) resource loss were each associated with higher levels of subsequent suffering. Positive religious coping moderated the associations of physical, interpersonal, and psychological (but not economic) resource loss on suffering, such that domains of resource loss evidenced a stronger positive association with suffering at higher levels of positive religious coping. Implications of the findings for supporting people dealing with disaster-related resource loss are discussed.