Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

JKMU Ethical Policies

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Metric

Editorial Policies

Data Sharing Policy

The Relationship among Mask-Wearing, Fatalism, and Religiosity in a Muslim Population: Implications for Health Education

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Health Services Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

 
 Background: Understanding the relationship between religiosity and health behaviors helps us tailor messages based on cultural beliefs. We conducted an online survey to find any relationship between fatalistic beliefs, religiosity, and mask-wearing as a health behavior in an Islamic context.
Methods: An online questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted via convenience sampling. The participants consisted of 503 subjects from the adult population of Kerman province, located in southeast Iran. The measurement tool consisted of four sections: (A) demographic characteristics, (B) three items related to mask-wearing, (C) The God Locus of Health Control (GLHC) scale, consisting of six items measuring fatalistic beliefs, and (D) The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL), consisting of five items measuring religiosity. “Mask adherence” applied to those who wore masks during all public activities (i.e., continually).
Results: The mean age of the participants was 36.5 ± 10.9 years, and females comprised 60% (n = 302) of the sample. More than one-fifth (n = 109) reported a history of COVID-19 infection. Approximately one-third of respondents (n = 163) reported full mask adherence. The logistic regression model showed that there was no significant relationship between mask adherence and religiosity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.99–1.08) or fatalistic beliefs (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.98–1.04).
Conclusion: Fatalism and religiosity had no association with mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Iranian Muslim population. Therefore, religious beliefs may have no place in the cultural tailoring of health messages for promoting mask adherence.

Highlights

zahra khajeh(google scholar)(pubmed)

vahid Yazdi-Feyzabadi(google scholar)(pubmed)

Nouzar Nakhaee(google scholar)(pubmed)

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  

    1. Li YD, Chi WY, Su JH, Ferrall L, Hung CF, Wu TC. Coronavirus vaccine development: from SARS and MERS to COVID-19. J Biomed Sci. 2020;27(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s12929-020- 00695-2.
    2. Ünal Ö. During COVID-19, which is more effective in work accident prevention behavior of healthcare professionals: Safety awareness or fatalism perception? Work. 2020;67(4):783-90. doi: 10.3233/wor-203327.
    3. Salajegheh Tazerji S, Shahabinejad F, Tokasi M, Rad MA, Khan MS, Safdar M, et al. Global data analysis and risk factors associated with morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. Gene Rep. 2022;26:101505. doi: 10.1016/j.genrep.2022.101505.
    4. Andrejko KL, Pry JM, Myers JF, Fukui N, DeGuzman JL, Openshaw J, et al. Effectiveness of face mask or respirator use in indoor public settings for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection - California, February-December 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(6):212-6. doi: 10.15585/ mmwr.mm7106e1.
    5. Wollina U, Karadağ AS, Rowland-Payne C, Chiriac A, Lotti T. Cutaneous signs in COVID-19 patients: a review. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33(5):e13549. doi: 10.1111/dth.13549.
    6. Leech G, Rogers-Smith C, Monrad JT, Sandbrink JB, Snodin B, Zinkov R, et al. Mask wearing in community settings reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(23):e2119266119. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.2119266119.
    7. Asri A, Asri V, Renerte B, Föllmi-Heusi F, Leuppi JD, Muser J, et al. Wearing a mask-For yourself or for others? Behavioral correlates of mask wearing among COVID-19 frontline workers. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0253621. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0253621.
    8. Hosseini Bamakan SM, Haddadpoor Jahromi MJ. Role of social responsibility in prevention of the COVID-19 outbreak from systems thinking perspective. Public Health. 2021;190:e18- 20. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.007.
    9. Doshmangir L, Mahbub Ahari A, Qolipour K, Azami S, Kalankesh L, Doshmangir P, et al. East Asia’s strategies for effective response to COVID-19: lessons learned for Iran. Management Strategies in Health System. 2020;4(4):370-3. doi: 10.18502/mshsj.v4i4.2542. [Persian].
    10. Barati M, Bashirian S, Jormand H, Khazaei S, Jenabi E, Zareian S. The association between COVID-19 media literacy and the fear of COVID-19 among students during coronavirus pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Health Lit. 2022;7(2):46-58.
    11. Al-Ramahi M, Elnoshokaty A, El-Gayar O, Nasralah T, Wahbeh A. Public discourse against masks in the COVID-19 era: infodemiology study of Twitter data. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(4):e26780. doi: 10.2196/26780.
    12. Clark C, Davila A, Regis M, Kraus S. Predictors of COVID-19 voluntary compliance behaviors: an international investigation. Glob Transit. 2020;2:76-82. doi: 10.1016/j. glt.2020.06.003.
    13. Hung YW. A Study of Barriers to the Wearing of Face Masks by Adults in the US to Prevent the Spread of Influenza [dissertation]. Arizona State University; 2018.
    14. Gellman MD, Turner JR. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York, NY: Springer; 2013.
    15. Cohn LD, Esparza del Villar ÓA. Fatalism and Health Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review. Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Administración; 2015.
    16. Schlundt DG, Franklin MD, Patel K, McClellan L, Larson C, Niebler S, et al. Religious affiliation, health behaviors and outcomes: Nashville REACH 2010. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32(6):714-24. doi: 10.5555/ajhb.2008.32.6.714.
    17. Kreuter MW, Lukwago SN, Bucholtz RD, Clark EM, Sanders-Thompson V. Achieving cultural appropriateness in health promotion programs: targeted and tailored approaches. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(2):133-46. doi: 10.1177/1090198102251021.
    18. Padela AI, Malik S, Vu M, Quinn M, Peek M. Developing religiously-tailored health messages for behavioral change: introducing the reframe, reprioritize, and reform (“3R”) model. Soc Sci Med. 2018;204:92-9. doi: 10.1016/j. socscimed.2018.03.023.
    19. Bujang MA, Sa’at N, Sidik T, Joo LC. Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. Malays J Med Sci. 2018;25(4):122-30. doi: 10.21315/mjms2018.25.4.12.
    20. Mirzaei A, Kazembeigi F, Kakaei H, Jalilian M, Mazloomi S, Nourmoradi H. Application of health belief model to predict COVID-19-preventive behaviors among a sample of Iranian adult population. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:69. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_747_20.
    21. Wallston KA, Malcarne VL, Flores L, Hansdottir I, Smith CA, Stein MJ, et al. Does God determine your health? The God locus of health control scale. Cognit Ther Res. 1999;23(2):131- 42. doi: 10.1023/a:1018723010685.
    22. Nabipour AR, Nakhaee N, Khanjani N, Soltani M, Zirak Moradlou H, Soltani Z. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the God locus of health control (GLHC): a study on Muslim pilgrims. J Relig Health. 2018;57(1):84-93. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0350-4.
    23. Koenig HG, Büssing A. The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): a five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions. 2010;1(1):78-85. doi: 10.3390/rel1010078.
    24. Saffari M, Mohammadi Zeidi I, Pakpour AH, Koenig HG. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): a study on Muslims. J Relig Health. 2013;52(2):631-41. doi: 10.1007/s10943-012-9639-0.
    25. Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 2005;15(2):195-219. doi: 10.1108/10662240510590360.
    26. Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17.
    27. Howard J, Huang A, Li Z, Tufekci Z, Zdimal V, van der Westhuizen HM, et al. An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(4):e2014564118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2014564118.
    28. Maercker A, Ben-Ezra M, Esparza OA, Augsburger M. Fatalism as a traditional cultural belief potentially relevant to trauma sequelae: measurement equivalence, extent and associations in six countries. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1657371. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2019.1657371.
    29. Nguyen Thi Yen C, Hermoso C, Laguilles EM, De Castro LE, Camposano SM, Jalmasco N, et al. Vietnam’s success story against COVID-19. Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2021;2:100132. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100132.
    30. Hassan HD. Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities. DIANE Publishing; 2010.
    31. Ishaq B, Østby L, Johannessen A. Muslim religiosity and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study among muslims in Norway. SSM Popul Health. 2021;15:100843. doi: 10.1016/j. ssmph.2021.100843.
    32. Baker JO, Martí G, Braunstein R, Whitehead AL, Yukich G. Religion in the age of social distancing: how COVID-19 presents new directions for research. Sociol Relig. 2020;81(4):357-70. doi: 10.1093/socrel/sraa039.
    33. Hassan SM, Ring A, Tahir N, Gabbay M. How do Muslim community members perceive COVID-19 risk reduction recommendations - a UK qualitative study? BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):449. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10506-4.
    34. Andrade C. The limitations of online surveys. Indian J Psychol Med. 2020;42(6):575-6. doi: 10.1177/0253717620957496.

     

     

Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Volume 31, Issue 1
March and April 2024
Pages 35-39
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics