The objective of this study was to examine the cross-sectional association between coping styles and allostatic load among African American adults in the Jackson Heart Study (2000–2004). Coping styles were assessed using the Coping Strategies Inventory-Short Form; allostatic load was measured by using 9 biomarkers standardized into
Allostatic load is a measure of physiological wear and tear on the body’s regulatory systems resulting from a cumulative exposure to stressors (
Data were obtained by examining the baseline data of the Jackson Heart Study, a cohort of African American adults from the Jackson, Mississippi, tri-county area (N = 5,301; women, n = 3,360; men, n = 1,941). The Jackson Heart Study has been described in detail elsewhere (
Biomarkers used to conceptualize allostatic load were neuroendocrine (cortisol, ug/dL); metabolic (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c [%]; total cholesterol–high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio [mg/dL]; waist circumference [cm]); autonomic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] [mmHg]; diastolic blood pressure [DBP] [mmHg]; heart rate [beats/min]); and immune (C-reactive protein [mg/dL]; white blood cell count [th/cmm]) (
Coping styles were measured by using the Coping Strategies Inventory Short Form, a validated 16-item instrument used to measure engagement and disengagement coping styles. Engagement occurs when a person actively confronts a stressor (eg, “I tackle the problem head on.”). Disengagement occurs when a person avoids a stressor (eg, “I try not to think about the problem”). Each item was evaluated by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = almost always). Scores within each 8-item sub-scale were summed (range: 8–40). Cronbach’s α is 0.59 for the disengagement scale and 0.70 for the engagement scale in the Jackson Heart Study cohort (
Covariates were chosen on the basis of previous research (
All analyses were stratified by sex because of physiological differences of allostatic load by sex (
The analytic sample consisted of 2,068 women (mean age: 53.6 years; SD=12.5 years) and 1,174 men (mean age, 52.7 y; SD, 12.5 y) from the baseline assessment of the Jackson Heart Study (N = 3,242). Men had higher allostatic load scores than women (0.15 vs −0.19;
| Characteristic | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|
|
| 1,174 (36.2) | 2,068 (63.8) |
|
| 52.7 (12.5) | 53.6 (12.5) |
|
| ||
| Less than a high school diploma | 180 (15.3) | 277 (13.4) |
| High school diploma or GED | 487 (41.5) | 879 (42.5) |
| More than a high school diploma | 502 (42.8) | 910 (44.0) |
| Data missing | 5 (0.4) | 2 (0.1) |
|
| ||
| Yes | 471 (40.1) | 508 (24.6) |
| No | 702 (59.8) | 1,557 (75.3) |
| Data missing | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.2) |
|
| ||
| Yes | 708 (60.3) | 815 (39.4) |
| No | 462 (39.4) | 1,243 (60.1) |
| Data missing | 4 (0.3) | 10 (0.5) |
|
| ||
| Yes | 291 (24.8) | 393 (19.0) |
| No | 882 (75.1) | 1,675 (81.0) |
| Data missing | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0) |
| Allostatic load score | 0.15 (1.43) | −0.19 (1.42) |
|
| ||
| Engagement | 27.9 (4.5) | 28.3 (4.6) |
| Disengagement | 19.2 (4.0) | 20.4 (3.9) |
Abbreviations: GED, general education development; SD, standard deviation.
Physical activity was measured as a summary score of the frequency and duration of watching television; walking or bicycling to work, to school, or on errands; and physical exercise (modified from the Baecke physical activity questionnaire) (
Allostatic load levels are presented as
The sex-stratified multivariable linear regression indicated that women reporting higher disengagement coping styles had significantly higher allostatic load scores (β = 0.016; 95% CI, 0.001–0.032; F=14.57), after adjusting for age, education, smoking status, alcohol use, and physical activity. No significant associations were observed among men or among engagement coping styles (
| Model | Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement | Disengagement | Engagement | Disengagement | |
|
| 0.007 (−0.011 to 0.025) | −0.001 (−0.021 to 0.019) | −0.002 (−0.015 to 0.010) | 0.016 (0.001 to 0.032 |
| Adjusted | 0.045 | 0.043 | 0.043 | 0.044 |
|
| 8.8 | 8.66 | 14.50 | 14.57 |
|
| ||||
| Model 2a, Systolic blood pressure | 0.004 (−0.008 to 0.016) | 0.003 (−0.010 to 0.016) | −0.004 (−0.013 to 0.004) | 0.011 (0.001 to 0.020 |
| Model 2b, Diastolic blood pressure | 0.005 (−0.008 to 0.018) | −0.003 (−0.017 to 0.012) | −0.001 (−0.010 to 0.007) | 0.010 (0.000 to 0.021) |
| Model 2c, Heart rate | −0.010 (−0.023 to 0.004) | −0.007 (−0.022 to 0.008) | −0.001 (−0.010 to 0.008) | 0.006 (−0.005 to 0.017) |
| Model 2d, Cortisol | 0.006 (−0.006 to 0.018) | −0.003 (−0.017 to 0.010) | 0.001 (−0.008 to 0.009) | 0.003 (−0.008 to 0.013) |
| Model 2e, Hemoglobin A1c, % | −0.003 (−0.016 to 0.010) | 0.005 (−0.010 to 0.019) | 0.009 (0 to 0.018 | −0.002 (−0.012 to 0.009) |
| Model 2f, Waist circumference | 0.005 (−0.007 to 0.017) | 0.007 (−0.007 to 0.020) | −0.007 (−0.016 to 0.003) | 0.014 (0.003 to 0.025 |
| Model 2g, Ratio, total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol | 0.002 (−0.009 to 0.014) | 0.002 (−0.011 to 0.014) | −0.003 (−0.012 to 0.005) | −0.003 (−0.013 to 0.007) |
| Model 2h, White blood count | −0.004 (−0.021 to 0.013) | −0.005 (−0.024 to 0.013) | 0.003 (−0.005 to 0.011) | 0.006 (−0.003 to 0.016) |
| Model 2i, C-reactive protein | 0.004 (−0.003 to 0.012) | 0.002 (−0.006 to 0.010) | −0.001 (−0.009 to 0.007) | 0.003 (−0.006 to 0.013) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HDL, high density lipoprotein.
Outcome for model 1 is global allostatic load adjusted for age, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.
Outcomes for models 2a through 2i are individual allostatic load components adjusted for age, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and physical activity.
We further examined the individual allostatic load components within the global allostatic load scores to determine which of the components were the primary drivers of the significant association between disengagement coping styles and allostatic load among women. Results indicated that women who used disengagement styles had significantly elevated SBP (β = 0.011; 95% CI, 0.001–0.02) and waist circumference (β = 0.014; 95% CI, 0.003–0.025). Additionally, women who used engagement styles had significantly elevated glycosylated hemoglobin A1c% (β = 0.009; 95% CI, 0–0.018). All other individual allostatic load components in either sex were not significant (
Results indicated that women who avoided stressors (ie, had disengagement coping styles) were likely to have higher allostatic load levels than women who did not. No significant associations were found for men. Because African American women experience double jeopardy (ie, racism and sexism) and other chronic stressors (ie, familial responsibilities), this combination may subsume their ability to cope effectively with daily hassles, thereby increasing their susceptibility to elevated allostatic load (
This study has some limitations that should be noted. The cross-sectional design limits our ability to draw causal inferences. Additionally, we had a large proportion of participants with missing information on coping style and allostatic load. Sensitivity analyses comparing those who were and were not included indicated no significant differences in terms of sex or coping styles, but those who were excluded had significantly higher allostatic load scores (0.18 vs −0.07;
This was the first community-based study to examine coping styles and allostatic load in African Americans. African American women who used disengagement coping styles had significantly higher allostatic load scores, which can result in long-term bodily strain (
This research was supported in part by contracts no. HHSN268201300046C, no. HHSN268201300047C, no. HHSN268201300048C, no. HHSN268201300049C, and no. HHSN268201300050C from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. This work was also supported in part by the University of Michigan Center for Integrative Approaches to Health Disparities (grant no. P60MD002249), which is funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. This work was also supported in part by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (grant no. R25GM083270) and the National Institute of Mental Health (grant no. 5F31MH104000-01).
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.