Natalie Slopen1, Ying Chen2, Naomi Priest3, Michelle A Albert4, David R Williams5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Maryland College Park, United States. Electronic address: nslopen@umd.edu. 2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, United States. 3. ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University, Australia. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of California at San Francisco, CA, United States. 5. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, United States; Department of African and African American Studies, Harvard University, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether greater emotional and instrumental support during childhood is associated with less dysregulation across multiple physiological systems in midlife. METHODS: Data are from participants in the second wave of the Midlife in the United States study (2004-2005) who participated in a clinic-based assessment of health status. Emotional and instrumental support was measured using a seven-item scale (α=0.89) based on participant retrospective self-report. Biological dysregulation was assessed using an allostatic load (AL) score constructed from 24 measures across seven physiological systems (N=1236, aged 34-84 years). RESULTS: Emotional and instrumental support in childhood was associated with lower AL in a monotonic fashion: compared to individuals in the lowest quartile of support, respondents in the second, third, and fourth quartiles had -0.08 (standard deviation (SD)=0.08), -0.13 (SD=0.08) and -0.21 (SD=0.08) units lower AL, adjusting for age, sex, and race. This pattern was maintained after adjustment for reporting bias, childhood socioeconomic disadvantage, past-year depression, and physician-diagnosed cardiovascular disease or diabetes (p≤0.01). The inflammation and metabolic-lipid subscales showed the strongest associations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater emotional and instrumental support in childhood was associated with less biological dysregulation in midlife, even after accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in childhood and other potential confounders.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether greater emotional and instrumental support during childhood is associated with less dysregulation across multiple physiological systems in midlife. METHODS: Data are from participants in the second wave of the Midlife in the United States study (2004-2005) who participated in a clinic-based assessment of health status. Emotional and instrumental support was measured using a seven-item scale (α=0.89) based on participant retrospective self-report. Biological dysregulation was assessed using an allostatic load (AL) score constructed from 24 measures across seven physiological systems (N=1236, aged 34-84 years). RESULTS: Emotional and instrumental support in childhood was associated with lower AL in a monotonic fashion: compared to individuals in the lowest quartile of support, respondents in the second, third, and fourth quartiles had -0.08 (standard deviation (SD)=0.08), -0.13 (SD=0.08) and -0.21 (SD=0.08) units lower AL, adjusting for age, sex, and race. This pattern was maintained after adjustment for reporting bias, childhood socioeconomic disadvantage, past-year depression, and physician-diagnosed cardiovascular disease or diabetes (p≤0.01). The inflammation and metabolic-lipid subscales showed the strongest associations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater emotional and instrumental support in childhood was associated with less biological dysregulation in midlife, even after accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in childhood and other potential confounders.
Authors: Marie Therese Cooney; Erkki Vartiainen; Tiina Laatikainen; Tinna Laakitainen; Anne Juolevi; Alexandra Dudina; Ian M Graham Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: M D Resnick; P S Bearman; R W Blum; K E Bauman; K M Harris; J Jones; J Tabor; T Beuhring; R E Sieving; M Shew; M Ireland; L H Bearinger; J R Udry Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D P Bernstein; L Fink; L Handelsman; J Foote; M Lovejoy; K Wenzel; E Sapareto; J Ruggiero Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Hugo Westerlund; Per E Gustafsson; Töres Theorell; Urban Janlert; Anne Hammarström Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Arun S Karlamangla; Takahiro Mori; Sharon S Merkin; Teresa E Seeman; Gail A Greendale; Neil Binkley; Carolyn J Crandall Journal: Bone Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Joseph Lunyera; John W Stanifer; Clemontina A Davenport; Dinushika Mohottige; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Julia J Scialla; Jane Pendergast; L Ebony Boulware; Clarissa Jonas Diamantidis Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Laura B Zahodne; Neika Sharifian; Jennifer J Manly; Jennifer A Sumner; Michael Crowe; Virginia G Wadley; Virginia J Howard; Audrey R Murchland; Willa D Brenowitz; Jennifer Weuve Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2019-09-30
Authors: Miriam E Van Dyke; Nicole Kau'i Baumhofer; Natalie Slopen; Mahasin S Mujahid; Cheryl R Clark; David R Williams; Tené T Lewis Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.864