4.3 Article

Depressive symptoms are associated with blunted cortisol stress responses in very low-income women

期刊

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 211-216

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.psy.0000156939.89050.28

关键词

depression; salivary cortisol; stress; poverty; HPA axis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The Purpose of this study was to examine the association between depressive symptoms and salivary cortisol responses to stress in a high-risk population of very poor Mexican women. Methods: Adult women (N = 1109) between the ages of IS and 44 years (mean age, 29) were identified in a house-to-house survey in low-income areas (income < 20th percentile nationally) of urban Mexico. An interview containing the Spanish version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) was administered to all women. The naturalistic stressor was defined as the unexpected arrival of a team of researchers at the participants' homes followed by all in-depth interview and physical assessment, with saliva samples taken at time of arrival (baseline), 25 minutes, and 50 minutes after arrival. Results: The mean CES-D score was 19.42 (range, 0-53). Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses revealed no effect of depressive symptoms on baseline salivary cortisol levels. However, a significant depressive symptom by time interaction revealed that women with elevations in depressive symptoms (CES-D scores = 35) failed to exhibit a cortisol response to the stressor. In contrast, in women with lower CES-D scores, cortisol levels significantly increased in response to the stressor. Conclusion: Consistent with research on individuals with major depressive disorder, results of this Study demonstrate that women with very high levels of depressive symptoms exhibit blunted cortisol responses to a naturalistic psychological stressor. Results also contribute to previous research by generalizing findings to a high risk, underserved population of women.

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

4.3
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