Tianyi Huang1,2, Claudia Trudel-Fitzgerald3, Elizabeth M Poole4, Sherylin Sawyer5, Laura D Kubzansky3, Susan E Hankinson4,6,7, Olivia I Okereke4,7,8, Shelley S Tworoger4,7,9. 1. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Ave., Rm 432, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. tih541@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. tih541@mail.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Ave., Rm 432, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 5. BWH/Harvard Cohorts Biorepository, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Associations between psychosocial factors and biomarkers are increasingly investigated in studies of cancer incidence and mortality. Documenting optimal data/biospecimen collection protocols and scale properties are fundamental for elucidating the impact of psychosocial factors on biologic systems and ultimately cancer development/progression. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2014, 233 Nurses' Health Study II women (mean age: 60.6) participated in the Mind-Body Study. Participants completed a detailed online psychosocial assessment and provided hair, toenail, timed saliva over 1 day, urine and fasting blood twice, 1 year apart. Additionally, two separate microbiome collections for stool and saliva were conducted between the psychosocial assessments. We assessed correlations between various psychosocial measures and evaluated their 1-year reproducibility using intraclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: Compliance with the protocols was high among participants. Psychosocial measures showed moderate-to-high reproducibility over 1 year (ICCs = 0.51-0.81). There was clear clustering of psychosocial factors according to whether they were querying positive (e.g., optimism, mastery, mindfulness) or negative (e.g., anxiety, depression, discrimination) emotion-related or social constructs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest feasibility for self-administered collection of various biospecimens and moderate-to-high reproducibility of psychosocial factors. The Mind-Body Study provides a unique resource for assessing inter-relationships between psychosocial factors and biological processes linked with long-term health outcomes, including carcinogenesis.
PURPOSE: Associations between psychosocial factors and biomarkers are increasingly investigated in studies of cancer incidence and mortality. Documenting optimal data/biospecimen collection protocols and scale properties are fundamental for elucidating the impact of psychosocial factors on biologic systems and ultimately cancer development/progression. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2014, 233 Nurses' Health Study II women (mean age: 60.6) participated in the Mind-Body Study. Participants completed a detailed online psychosocial assessment and provided hair, toenail, timed saliva over 1 day, urine and fasting blood twice, 1 year apart. Additionally, two separate microbiome collections for stool and saliva were conducted between the psychosocial assessments. We assessed correlations between various psychosocial measures and evaluated their 1-year reproducibility using intraclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: Compliance with the protocols was high among participants. Psychosocial measures showed moderate-to-high reproducibility over 1 year (ICCs = 0.51-0.81). There was clear clustering of psychosocial factors according to whether they were querying positive (e.g., optimism, mastery, mindfulness) or negative (e.g., anxiety, depression, discrimination) emotion-related or social constructs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest feasibility for self-administered collection of various biospecimens and moderate-to-high reproducibility of psychosocial factors. The Mind-Body Study provides a unique resource for assessing inter-relationships between psychosocial factors and biological processes linked with long-term health outcomes, including carcinogenesis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biospecimen collection; Cancer biomarkers; Correlation study; Psychosocial factors; Reproducibility; Study design
Authors: P R Stanforth; J Gagnon; T Rice; C Bouchard; A S Leon; D C Rao; J S Skinner; J H Wilmore Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Robert F Anda; Vincent J Felitti; J Douglas Bremner; John D Walker; Charles Whitfield; Bruce D Perry; Shanta R Dube; Wayne H Giles Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Susan E Hankinson; Eva S Schernhammer; Graham A Colditz; Ichiro Kawachi; Michelle D Holmes Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: R C Kessler; G Andrews; L J Colpe; E Hiripi; D K Mroczek; S L T Normand; E E Walters; A M Zaslavsky Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Oluwaseyi O Isehunwa; Erica T Warner; Donna Spiegelman; Ying Zhang; Julie R Palmer; Alka M Kanaya; Shelley A Cole; Shelley S Tworoger; Lester Orville Shields; Yue Gu; Blake Victor Kent; Immaculata De Vivo; Alexandra E Shields Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 11.555
Authors: Katherine H Shutta; Raji Balasubramanian; Tianyi Huang; Shaili C Jha; Oana A Zeleznik; Candyce H Kroenke; Lesley F Tinker; Jordan W Smoller; Ramon Casanova; Shelley S Tworoger; JoAnn E Manson; Clary B Clish; Kathryn M Rexrode; Susan E Hankinson; Laura D Kubzansky Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.693
Authors: Tianyi Huang; Oana A Zeleznik; Andrea L Roberts; Raji Balasubramanian; Clary B Clish; A Heather Eliassen; Kathryn M Rexrode; Shelley S Tworoger; Susan E Hankinson; Karestan C Koenen; Laura D Kubzansky Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.864
Authors: Olivia R Orta; Tianyi Huang; Laura D Kubzansky; Kathryn L Terry; Brent A Coull; Michelle A Williams; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Christine Everett; Chengchen Li; Jeremy E Wilkinson; Andrew T Chan; Wendy S Garrett; Curtis Huttenhower; Eric B Rimm; Mingyang Song; Long H Nguyen; Lauren J McIver; Kerry Ivey; Jacques Izard; Natalia Palacios; A Heather Eliassen; Walter C Willett; Alberto Ascherio; Qi Sun; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 17.021
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Senaida Fernandez Poole; Mary White; Rodney Lyn; Debra A Flores; Helen G Haile; David R Williams Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Claudia Trudel-Fitzgerald; Shelley S Tworoger; Xuehong Zhang; Edward L Giovannucci; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Laura D Kubzansky Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Erica T Warner; Ying Zhang; Yue Gu; Tâmara P Taporoski; Alexandre Pereira; Immaculata DeVivo; Nicholas D Spence; Yvette Cozier; Julie R Palmer; Alka M Kanaya; Namratha R Kandula; Shelley A Cole; Shelley Tworoger; Alexandra Shields Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tianyi Huang; Raji Balasubramanian; Laura D Kubzansky; Susan E Hankinson; Yubing Yao; Clary B Clish; Aladdin H Shadyab; Buyun Liu; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn M Rexrode; JoAnn E Manson Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Oluwaseyi O Isehunwa; Erica T Warner; Donna Spiegelman; Tianyi Huang; Shelley S Tworoger; Blake Victor Kent; Alexandra E Shields Journal: Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol Date: 2021-06-06