Religiosidade/Espiritualidade em uma amostra nacional de psicólogos brasileiros: perfil e implicações na prática profissional

Abstract

Despite consistent evidence about the widespread prevalence of religiosity/spirituality (R/S) in the global population, as well as its impact and importance on clinical practice in mental health, there is a gap in the knowledge of R/S of psychology professionals in the world. Brazil and its impact on research and clinical practice. Objective: To investigate the R/S of Brazilian psychologists and its repercussions on professional practice. Method: National survey of Brazilian psychologists through an online questionnaire. Emails were sent to all registered psychologists on the Orienta Psi Channel of the Federal Council of Psychology. The questionnaire addressed sociodemographic profile, training and professional performance, personal R/S and impact on clinical and research practice. SPSS was used for statistical analysis, with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. For qualitative data content analysis was used. Results: Most of the 4,300 respondents were female, with a high level of education (graduate) and working in clinical practice. Although most psychologists have religious affiliation (78.3%), the frequency of those without religion is almost three times higher than the Brazilian population. Although most professionals consider religion beneficial for mental health (62%), a majority also say they do not consider R/S issues relevant to the proposed treatment (65%). This is thought to be related to the lack of specific training on how to deal with R/S in the clinic, which was stated by only 24.2% of respondents. Training predicted greater belief in the benefits of R/S for mental health (56%), as well as predicted more often with which question about R/S (184%) and which considered relevant R/S questions (229%). Age predicted all personal R/S variables, as well as beliefs about the effect, approach, and understanding of the relevance of R/S aspects in clinical practice. Religious attendance ≥1 time per week, involvement in individual religious activities ≥ 1 time per day, and intrinsic religiosity as “truth or wholly true” were predictors of personal belief about the beneficial effect of R/S on mental health. The Cognitive-Behavioral Theoretical Framework was a predictor of belief about the beneficial effect of R/S on mental health and considering relevant R/S issues, while Behavioral and Psychoanalysis decrease the chances of believing in the beneficial effect of R/S. Higher education was a predictor of lower religious frequency, lower frequency of religious activities and lower intrinsic religiosity, as well as greater attachment to the negative aspects of the R/S relationship and health. A total of 1213 comments were left at the end of the questionnaire, categorized as: practical approach (582); concept distinction / definition (102); Personal R/S and influence on practice (199); frequent/important topic (69); training (95); and others (188). Conclusions: Although most Brazilian psychologists have R/S beliefs and consider it important to address this issue in clinical practice, these professionals tend to be less religious than the population they serve and lack training on how to approach R/S in the clinical practice. Skills and abilities need to be developed to understand and include this dimension in our mental health care practice.