4.3 Article

Coping strategy and social support modify the association between perceived stress and C-reactive protein: a longitudinal study of healthy men and women

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10253890.2018.1435638

Keywords

Coping strategy; C-reactive protein; inflammation; longitudinal study; perceived stress; social support

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inconsistent associations have been reported between perceived stress and C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation. We previously observed a male-specific inverse relationship between perceived stress and CRP in a cross-sectional study. In the present study, we examined the longitudinal association between changes in perceived stress and CRP, and further analyzed whether changes in coping strategies and social support modify this association. This study included 8454 participants in both a baseline survey and a follow-up survey 5years later. Psychosocial measures (i.e. perceived stress, coping strategies, and social support) and CRP concentrations were measured by identical means in both surveys. Consistent with our previous findings, increased perceived stress was significantly associated with lower CRP in men (p(trend)=.037), but not in women. Increased emotional expression, a coping strategy, was also associated with lower CRP in women (p(trend)=.024). Furthermore, interactions between perceived stress and a coping strategy (positive reappraisal) or social support on CRP were found in men (p(interaction)=.007 and .038, respectively); the above inverse association between stress and CRP was not detected for participants with diminished positive reappraisal or social support. In conclusion, increases in perceived stress during a 5-year period were associated with decreases in CRP among healthy men, and the observed association was possibly modified by coping strategy or social support.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available