A total of 535 participants from 16 hospitals located across the country (mainly emergency departments, maternity, intensive care, resuscitation units, and psychiatric departments) responded positively to completing the questionnaire. The sample included general nurses (36%), midwives (28%), psychiatric nurses (20.6%), and emergency and intensive care nurses (15.4%). The majority of the sample was represented by the female gender (74%) and a mean age of 34.1 ± 10.5 years. More than 57.2% of the participants were married. Almost 97% of the participants reported having a degree in nursing, and 58.3% were in regional hospitals; nevertheless, 42.7% of the participants were in university hospitals. More descriptive findings for the questionnaires are shown in
Table 1.
| Mean ± SD | Religious Practices | Prosocial Humanistic Practices | Existentialistic Practices | Gratitude Awe | Spiritual Mind-Body Practices | Emotional Exhaustion | Depersonalization | Personal Accomplishment | Positive Religious Adaptation RCOPE | Negative Religious Adaptation RCOPE | Physical Health | Mental Health |
|---|
| Religious practices | 54.15 ± 21.72 | 1 | 0.25** (0.000) | 0.29** (0.000) | 0.22** (0.000) | 0.51** (0.000) | -0.03 (0.420) | 0.034 (0.426) | 0.15** (0.000) | 0.41** (0.000) | -0.008 (0.85) | -0.02 (0.57) | 0.06 (0.15) |
| Prosocial humanistic practices | 78.83 ± 17.44 | | 1 | 0.32** (0.000) | 0.52** (0.000) | 0.18** (0.000) | 0.09* (0.028) | 0.025 (0.559) | 0.27** (0.000) | 0.25** (0.000) | -0.07 (0.13) | -0.020 (0.64) | 0.01 (0.71) |
| Existentialistic practices | 65.99 ± 23.79 | | | 1 | 0.32** (0.000) | 0.35** (0.000) | 0.17** (0.000) | 0.111* (0.010) | 0.191** (0.000) | 0.21** (0.000) | 0.05 (0.21) | -0.017 (0.69) | -0.01 (0.74) |
| Gratitude awe | 66.95 ± 20.08 | | | | 1 | 0.24** (0.000) | 0.21** (0.000) | 0.1* (0.025) | 0.175** (0.000) | 0.19** (0.000) | -0.01 (0.73) | -0.03 (0.40) | 0.02 (0.7) |
| Spiritual mind-body practices | 37.65 ± 25.66 | | | | | 1 | 0.03 (0.539) | 0.14** (0.001) | 0.11** (0.008) | 0.23** (0.000) | 0.158** (0.000) | -0.06 (0.14) | 0.10* (0.02) |
| Emotional exhaustion | 30.56 ± 11.18 | | | | | | 1 | 0.44** (0.000) | 0.171** (0.000) | 0.09* (0.026) | 0.05 (0.26) | -0.15** (0.001) | -0.29** (0.000) |
| Depersonalization | 11.12 ± 6.11 | | | | | | | 1 | -0.079 (0.069) | 0.03 (0.545) | 0.171** (0.000) | -0.07 (0.08) | -0.18** (0.000) |
| Personal accomplishment | 31.22 ± 8.41 | | | | | | | | 1 | 0.174** (0.000) | -0.03 (0.42) | -0.08 (0.07) | -0.010 (0.82) |
| Positive religious adaptation RCOPE | 17.03 ± 4.53 | | | | | | | | | 1 | -0.14** (0.001) | -0.08 (0.06) | 0.01 (0.7) |
| Negative religious adaptation RCOPE | 4.36 ± 4.74 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | -0.010 (0.81) | -0.15** (0.001) |
| Physical health | 42.08 ± 8.01 | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | -0.06 (0.17) |
| Mental health | 40.06 ± 8.35 | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |
a * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for each subscale of the scales under investigation. Specifically, the reliability for positive and negative religious adaptation subscales was 0.9 and 0.84, respectively. The religious commitment subscale demonstrated a reliability of 0.8. The overall reliability was generally high, indicating good internal consistency, surpassing the threshold of 0.7, with the exception of DP, which achieved a score of 0.65.
Almost 63.6% and 41.3% of the participants reported a high score for the EE and DP dimensions, respectively, and 29.2% of the respondents reported a low score on the PA dimension. The majority of the respondents reported a high engagement of religiousness. Moreover, 52.1% of the participants scored high in religious practice, 93.1% higher in prosocial humanistic, and 77.4% higher in existentialistic practices. In this study, 81.5% of the respondents were highly engaged in gratitude awe; nevertheless, 72.1% of the participants reported a rare engagement in spiritual mind-body practices.
The participants showed mean physical health and mental health scores of 42.0 ± 8.01 and 40.0 ± 8.35, respectively. The lower level of physical health was associated with higher levels of EE (53.27% of participants); however, the lower level of mental health was associated with higher levels of EE (57.75% of participants) and DP (37% of participants).
According to the hypothesized model, a correlation matrix was shown, using Pearson’s correlation, in order to explore the relationships between the variables in the path model, which is shown in
Table 1. The findings of this correlation matrix propose several significant relationships that were predicted, including the relationships between dimensions of religious engagement and all other variables in the model, the relationship between religious adaptation and quality of life, and the relationship between burnout dimensions and negative and positive adaptation. Some other relationships were not significant, including those between PA and mental and physical health in the model. Furthermore, physical health was not significantly linked to positive and negative adaptation.
The initial model (
Figure 1) was developed and tested with the dimensions of religious, humanistic, and existential practices, gratitude, spiritual mind-body practices, burnout, and quality of life as latent variables. The model was based on a theoretical and empirical approach. All hypothesized pathways were not significant, and certain model dimensions were significantly correlated. The testing of the initial SEM revealed a poor fit to the data (df = 35, χ
2 = 148.56, χ
2/df = 4.24, P < 0.0001, CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.778, and RMSEA = 0.08).
Then, various adjustments and improvements, reformulating the model, were accepted, especially the removal and addition of certain pathways between dimensions guided by modification indices (MI), as shown in
Table 2 and on empirical and theoretical grounds. Additional direct paths were accepted between EE and PA (MI = 22.73), as suggested by Pehlivanoğlu and Civelek (
35), between negative and positive religious adaptation (MI = 16.829) as reported in empirical studies (
25,
36), between prosocial humanistic practices and PA (MI = 40.32), and later with positive religious adaptation (MI = 16.70) and physical and mental health (MI = 5.95) as the findings of Ohrnberger et al.’s study (
37). At last, the link between spiritual mind-body and DP emerged as given by MI. According to the aforementioned evidence, some not statistically significant pathways were deleted from the model.
| Variables | MI | Expected Parameter Change |
|---|
| Depersonalization←Spiritual mind-body practices | 10.626 | 0.030 |
| Negative religious adaptation←Positive religious adaptation | 16.829 | -0.181 |
| Positive religious adaptation←Prosocial humanistic practices | 11.115 | 0.034 |
| Personal accomplishment←Prosocial humanistic practices | 40.316 | 0.132 |
| Personal accomplishment←Positive religious adaptation | 16.701 | 0.327 |
| Personal accomplishment←Exhaustion emotional | 22.737 | 0.155 |
| Mental health←Physical health | 5.957 | -0.104 |
Abbreviation: MI, modification indices.
The quality of fit of the improved model is shown in
Figure 2. The absolute fit measure showed and confirmed an adequate and satisfactory fit of the improved model (df = 39, χ
2 = 46.29, χ
2/df = 1.19 ≤ 2, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98 > 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.019).
Results of the modified hypothetical model analysis
In brief, the model is illustrated in
Figure 2. The SEM for the path analysis was constructed to analyze the direct and indirect effects of spiritual/religious commitment and burnout on mental and physical health.
Table 3 shows the direct effects, indirect effects, and total effects among all the constructs.
| Variebles | Effects | Direct | Indirect | Total |
|---|
| Emotional exhaustion | Religious | -0.06 a | - | -0.06 a |
| Existantialistic | 0.07 a | - | 0.07 a |
| Gratitude | 0.11 a | - | 0.11 a |
| Positive religious adaptation | Emotional exhaustion | 0.04 b | - | 0.04 b |
| Religious | 0.079 a | -0.002 | 0.077 a |
| Prosocial humanistic | 0.04 a | - | 0.04 a |
| Existentialistic | - | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Gratitude | - | 0.004 b | 0.004 b |
| Personal accomplishment | Emotional exhaustion | 0.165 | -0.052 a | 0.113 a |
| Depersonalization | -0.252 a | - | -0.252 a |
| Positive religious adaptation | 0.19 b | - | 0.19 b |
| Religious | | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Prosocial humanistic | 0.11 a | 0.01 | 0.12 a |
| Existantialistic | - | 0.007 b | 0.007 b |
| Spiritual mind-body practices | - | -0.008 b | -0.008 b |
| Gratitude | - | 0.012 b | 0.012 b |
| Mental health MCS | Emotional exhaustion | -0.23 a | -0.01 | -0.22 a |
| Positive religious adaptation | - | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Depersonalization | | -0.03 | -0.03 |
| Negative religious adaptation | -0.23 b | - | -0.23 b |
| Religious | - | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Prosocial humanistic | - | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Existantialistic | - | -0.014 b | -0.014 b |
| Spiritual mind-body practices | - | -0.009 | -0.009 |
| Gratitude | - | -0.024 a | -0.024 a |
| Physical health PCS | -0.11 b | - | -0.11 b |
| Depersonalization | Emotional exhaustion | 0.24 a | - | 0.24 a |
| Religious | - | -0.015 b | -0.015 b |
| Prosocial humanistic | - | | |
| Existantialistic | - | 0.016 b | 0.016 b |
| Gratitude | - | 0.03 a | 0.03 a |
| Negative religious adaptation | Emotional exhaustion | | 0.02 a | 0.02 |
| Depersonalization | 0.12 a | - | 0.122 a |
| Religious | | -0.017 | -0.017 |
| Prosocial humanistic | | -0.007 | -0.007 |
| Existantialistic | | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Spiritual mind-body practices | 0.033 a | 0.004 b | 0.037 a |
| Gratitude | - | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Positive religious adaptation | -0.194 a | | -0.194 a |
| Physical health PCS | Emotional exhaustion | -0.11 a | -- | -0.11 a |
| Religious | - | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Existantialistic | - | -0.007 b | -0.007 b |
| Gratitude | - | -0.012 b | -0.012 b |
Abbreviations: PCS, Physical Composite Scale; MCS, Mental Composite Scale.
a P < 0.01
b P < 0.05
A model was established using religious adaptation and spiritual commitment as independent variables, physical and mental health as dependent variables, and EE, DP, and PA (burnout) as mediators in this relationship. In addition, the model enunciates that some factors, namely dimensions of religious practice, existentialistic, and gratitude awe, had an impact on EE. Prosocial humanistic practice had a significant direct impact on PA and positive religious adaptation. In addition, EE had a direct effect on DP and PA and an inverse effect on negative religious adaptation and mental and physical health dimensions. Finally, the final model showed the direct effect of positive religious adaptation on PA. Physical health had a direct effect on mental health, as expected. Positive religious adaptation had an indirect impact on mental health variables through negative religious adaptation. Mind-body spiritual practices had a direct impact on DP and on negative religious adaptation. The variances in mental and physical health explained by this model were 10.4% and 3.3%, respectively.