Relationship of Socioeconomic Status Indicators to Obesity in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Middle-Aged Women: A Population Study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity rates differ between Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women in the United States, with higher rates among Hispanic women. Socioeconomic processes contribute to this disparity both at the individual and the environmental level. Understanding these complex relationships requires multilevel analyses within cohorts of women that have a shared environment. In population-based samples of Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women from the same neighborhoods, we evaluated within each ethnic group a) The association of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) with body mass index (BMI); and b) The additional contribution of neighborhood-level measures of SES. METHODS: Using population-based multi-stage sampling methods, we oversampled low SES and Hispanic block groups. During household screening, we identified women aged 30 to 50 years. Among White women, we specifically oversampled women with low educational levels. 515 Hispanic and 503 White women completed baseline. Height and weight were measured. Baseline surveys, in Spanish and English, included four measures of SES. Three measures of area-level SES were examined. Analysis of loge BMI on each SES measure used linear mixed models, incorporating design effects. RESULTS: Among White women, low education, social status, and neighborhood SES were associated with higher BMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.05, respectively), independent of other SES measures. Although the highest grouped category of education, income and subjective social status within the Hispanic cohort had the lowest mean estimated BMI, the point estimates across categories were not monotonic, and had wide confidence intervals. As a result, in contrast to the findings among White women, no statistically significant associations were found between BMI and measures of SES among Hispanic women. DISCUSSION: Neighborhood and individual measures of SES operate differently in Hispanic compared with White women. We had assumed the measures we included to be most salient and operate similarly for both groups of women. Rather the salient factors for Hispanic women have yet to be identified. Improved understanding may ultimately inform the design of culturally-relevant multilevel obesity prevention strategies.

Socioeconomic status differences in food consumption following a laboratory-induced stressor.

We examined food consumption in response to a laboratory-induced stressor (two challenging neuropsychological tasks) among non-Hispanic White women categorized as lower or higher in socioeconomic status based on education. The two socioeconomic status groups did not differ with respect to current hunger or baseline dietary habits. Perceived stress was measured pre- and post-challenge. Snacks were offered post-challenge; food consumption was measured by weighing snack bowls pre- and post-offering. Perceived stress increased pre- to post-challenge for both groups, but this effect was stronger for women lower in socioeconomic status. In addition, women lower versus higher in socioeconomic status consumed more food overall and more high-fat sweet food in particular (large effect sizes). These findings provide evidence of socioeconomic status differences in food consumption following an acute stressor.

Stress, cortisol, and B lymphocytes: a novel approach to understanding academic stress and immune function.

Animal and human in vitro models suggest that stress-related B lymphocyte decrements are due to high levels of glucocorticoids which cause apoptosis of pre-B-cells as they emerge from the bone marrow. The present study sought to explore the relationships among distress, salivary cortisol, and human B lymphocytes in vivo. Distress (perceived stress, negative affect, depressive symptoms), lymphocyte phenotype, and salivary cortisol were assessed among first-year graduate students (n = 22) and a community control sample (n = 30) at the start of classes in the fall and the week immediately before spring preliminary exams. Compared to controls, students reported greater distress on all measures at each time point except baseline perceived stress. Hierarchical linear regression with necessary control variables was used to assess the effect of student status on the three measures of distress, the four measures of lymphocyte phenotype, and cortisol AUC and CAR over time (T1-T2). Student status was associated with a significant decrease in CD19 + B lymphocytes and flattened cortisol awakening response (CAR). Change in CAR was associated with the decrease in CD19 + B lymphocytes. Results indicated that there are significant associations among student status, flattening of CAR, and decrements in CD19 + lymphocytes.

Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management for Healthy Women at Risk for Breast Cancer: a Novel Application of a Proven Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Women at risk for breast cancer report elevated psychological distress, which has been adversely associated with cancer-relevant behaviors and biology. PURPOSE: The present study sought to examine the effects of a 10-week cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) group intervention on distress among women with a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to CBSM (N = 82) or a wait-list comparison group (N = 76). Baseline to postintervention effects of CBSM on depressive symptoms and perceived stress were examined using hierarchical regression. RESULTS: CBSM participants reported significantly lower posttreatment depressive symptoms (ß = -0.17, p < 0.05) and perceived stress (ß = -0.23, p < 0.05) than wait-list comparison participants. Additionally, greater relaxation practice predicted lower distress. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based CBSM intervention is feasible and can reduce psychological distress among women with a family history of breast cancer. The present findings represent an encouraging avenue for the future application of CBSM. ( Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00121160).

Improving low-wage, midsized employers' health promotion practices: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) offers evidence-based intervention strategies to prevent chronic disease. The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the University of Washington Health Promotion Research Center co-developed ACS Workplace Solutions (WPS) to improve workplaces' implementation of Community Guide strategies. PURPOSE: To test the effectiveness of WPS for midsized employers in low-wage industries. DESIGN: Two-arm RCT; workplaces were randomized to receive WPS during the study (intervention group) or at the end of the study (delayed control group). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight midsized employers (100-999 workers) in King County WA. INTERVENTION: WPS provides employers one-on-one consulting with an ACS interventionist via three meetings at the workplace. The interventionist recommends best practices to adopt based on the workplace's current practices, provides implementation toolkits for the best practices the employer chooses to adopt, conducts a follow-up visit at 6 months, and provides technical assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employers' implementation of 16 best practices (in the categories of insurance benefits, health-related policies, programs, tracking, and health communications) at baseline (June 2007-June 2008) and 15-month follow-up (October 2008-December 2009). Data were analyzed in 2010-2011. RESULTS: Intervention employers demonstrated greater improvement from baseline than control employers in two of the five best-practice categories; implementing policies (baseline scores: 39% program, 43% control; follow-up scores: 49% program, 45% control; p=0.013) and communications (baseline scores: 42% program, 44% control; follow-up scores: 76% program, 55% control; p=0.007). Total best-practice implementation improvement did not differ between study groups (baseline scores: 32% intervention, 37% control; follow-up scores: 39% intervention, 42% control; p=0.328). CONCLUSIONS: WPS improved employers' health-related policies and communications but did not improve insurance benefits design, programs, or tracking. Many employers were unable to modify insurance benefits and reported that the time and costs of implementing best practices were major barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00452816.