Stressful Life Events, Sexual Orientation, and Cardiometabolic Risk Among Young Adults in the United States

摘要: Exposure to a wide range of stressful life events—including high job strain (Bosma, Peter, Siegrist, & Marmot, 1998), care-giving for an ill family member (Lee, Colditz, Berkman, Kawachi, 2003), loss loved one (Kaprio, Koskenvuo, Rita, 1987), exposure life-threatening traumatic event (Kark, Goldman, Epstein, 1995), and childhood adversities (Slopen, Kubzansky, McLaughlin, Koenen, 2013)—has been consistently linked risk cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite numerous studies documenting these relationships, several important gaps in the literature remain. First, degree which associations between events CVD are consistent across course is largely unknown. Many behavioral (e.g., smoking, diet) social adversity) factors adult emerge early development Adair Dahly, 2005), suggesting that relationships might be evident young adulthood. Scant research has examined this possibility. Indeed, vast majority work examining conducted among middle-aged older adults (Everson-Rose Lewis, 2005). Second, relationship stressors likely vary sociodemographic groups. For instance, psychosocial stressors, such as marital stress, more strongly associated with outcomes women compared men (Iso et al., 2002; Orth-Gomer 2000). Further, association subclinical also varies by race/ethnicity (Slopen 2010; Troxel, Matthews, Bromberger, Sutton-Tyrrell, 2003). Although there emerging evidence sexual orientation disparities CVD-related (Cochran Mays, 2007; Conron, Mimiaga, Landers, Everett Mollborn, 2013; Hatzenbuehler, Slopen, 2013), we unaware have whether orientation. current study, sought address literature. Differential vulnerability models (Nolen-Hoeksema Girgus, 1994) provide potential framework understanding how could moderate risk. Specifically, differential posit members certain groups rendered vulnerable negative effects because they lower threshold developing adverse reactions 1994). These preexisting vulnerabilities, turn, exacerbated heightened socially disadvantaged experience advantaged groups. Why lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) individuals health consequences than heterosexuals? Managing stigmatized identity disrupts variety cognitive self-schemas), emotion-regulation maladaptive coping rumination suppression), neurobiological hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis-functioning) processes (Hatzenbuehler, 2009; Hatzenbuehler 2014; Inzlicht, McKay, Aronson, 2006; Major O’Brien, In biopsychosocial affect future susceptibility poor health, including 2005; Miller, Chen, Cole, Repetti, Taylor, Seeman, 2002). Differential due differences developmental timing stressors. Individuals who exposed develop depression (Hammen, Henry, Daley, 2000) posttraumatic stress disorder (McLaughlin, Gilman, 2010) following adulthood not experienced Multiple documented LGB adolescents their heterosexual peers victimized (Bontempo D’Augelli, 2002), maltreatment homelessness Xuan, 2012). This directly greater subsequent events. Based on 1994; Hammen 2000), hypothesized would cardiometabolic peers. particular, reasons stated above, were expected characteristics render them risk; when interact events, may heterosexuals. We question using cumulative score, designed characterize overall functioning multiple measures activity (Seeman 2004). opted use measure rather examine individual biomarkers light allostatic load research, suggests biological systems predict morbidity mortality better components (Poulter, 2003; Epel, Gruenewald, Karlamangla, McEwen, 2010). There limited knowledge about younger populations, particularly score. Consequently, study makes unique contributions our questions only existing data set (from National Longitudinal Study Adolescent Health; Add Shin, Edwards, Heeren, Brummett 2013) representative sample simultaneously measured orientation, over waves, biomarkers, established factors. therefore offered us rare opportunity role both United States.