4.2 Article

Measuring Stress in Young Children Using Hair Cortisol: The State of the Science

期刊

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR NURSING
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 499-510

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1099800417711583

关键词

hair cortisol; chronic stress; young children

类别

资金

  1. Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy
  2. Jonas Doctoral Nurse Scholar Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extensive literature suggests that adverse experiences in early childhood may deleteriously impact later health. These effects are thought to be related to the impact of persistent or chronic stress on various biological processes, mediated by dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and ultimately irregularities in cortisol levels. Ameliorating persistent stress in young children requires accurately measuring the chronicity of physiologic stress, which is difficult in young children because of unreliable self-report and the burden and inaccuracy associated with using invasive acute-stress biomeasures. A better way to approximate persistent stress in young children is measuring hair cortisol concentration (HCC), as it only requires one noninvasive collection to measure months of HPA-axis activity or experienced stress. However, few studies measure HCC in young children despite wide use in adult stress research. This article reviews and synthesizes research that uses HCC to approximate persistent stress in healthy children, 12-60 months of age. Reviewed studies indicate that HCC is elevated in young children who are experiencing forms of persistent stress such as low socioeconomic status and maternal distress. Hair cortisol is thus a promising measure of early childhood persistent stress, but due to the limited use of HCC in this population, much research is still needed. Specifically, nurse researchers may need to measure several factors associated with early childhood persistent stress and HCC to identify which children are at risk for stress-related disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据