Low stress resilience in late adolescence and risk of smoking, high alcohol consumption and drug use later in life

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

While compromised stress resilience constitutes a recognised risk factor for somatic and psychiatric disease development in general, the knowledge about how individual variation in vulnerability to stress may specifically influence the long-term risks of disadvantageous health behaviours is limited.

Methods

In this Swedish cohort study, we aimed to investigate the association between stress resilience in late adolescence and adult use of addictive substances. We included 9381 men with information on psychological stress resilience measured during military conscription examinations, who later responded to an extensive health survey (mean age 34.0±7.2 years) including detailed information on substance use. We modelled continuous outcomes using linear regression, binary outcomes with logistic regression and other categorical outcomes with multinomial logistic regression.

Results

We found that low stress resilience in adolescence conferred increased risks of all studied measures of addictive behaviour. After adjusting for childhood socioeconomic information, low stress resilience was associated with adult current regular smoking (relative risk ratio: 5.85, 95% CI 4.32 to 7.93), higher nicotine dependence scores (beta: 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23), hazardous use of alcohol (>14 alcoholic drink-equivalents per week, OR: 1.72, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.16), DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.25), and drug use (OR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.08). The results remained largely unchanged after further adjustments for adult educational attainment and occupation as well as for additional conscription covariates.

Conclusion

Low stress resilience in late adolescence appears to be associated with an increased risk of disadvantageous and addictive health behaviours in adulthood.

Related collections

Most cited references 32

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).

Kathryn M Connor, Jonathan Davidson (2003)

Resilience may be viewed as a measure of stress coping ability and, as such, could be an important target of treatment in anxiety, depression, and stress reactions. We describe a new rating scale to assess resilience. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) comprises of 25 items, each rated on a 5-point scale (0-4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The scale was administered to subjects in the following groups: community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The reliability, validity, and factor analytic structure of the scale were evaluated, and reference scores for study samples were calculated. Sensitivity to treatment effects was examined in subjects from the PTSD clinical trials. The scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and factor analysis yielded five factors. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that an increase in CD-RISC score was associated with greater improvement during treatment. Improvement in CD-RISC score was noted in proportion to overall clinical global improvement, with greatest increase noted in subjects with the highest global improvement and deterioration in CD-RISC score in those with minimal or no global improvement. The CD-RISC has sound psychometric properties and distinguishes between those with greater and lesser resilience. The scale demonstrates that resilience is modifiable and can improve with treatment, with greater improvement corresponding to higher levels of global improvement. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

0 comments Cited 2476 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?

George Bonanno (2004)

Many people are exposed to loss or potentially traumatic events at some point in their lives, and yet they continue to have positive emotional experiences and show only minor and transient disruptions in their ability to function. Unfortunately, because much of psychology's knowledge about how adults cope with loss or trauma has come from individuals who sought treatment or exhibited great distress, loss and trauma theorists have often viewed this type of resilience as either rare or pathological. The author challenges these assumptions by reviewing evidence that resilience represents a distinct trajectory from the process of recovery, that resilience in the face of loss or potential trauma is more common than is often believed, and that there are multiple and sometimes unexpected pathways to resilience. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

0 comments Cited 696 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding.

Michael Rutter (2006)

Resilience is an interactive concept that refers to a relative resistance to environmental risk experiences, or the overcoming of stress or adversity. As such, it differs from both social competence positive mental health. Resilience differs from traditional concepts of risk and protection in its focus on individual variations in response to comparable experiences. Accordingly, the research focus needs to be on those individual differences and the causal processes that they reflect, rather than on resilience as a general quality. Because resilience in relation to childhood adversities may stem from positive adult experiences, a life-span trajectory approach is needed. Also, because of the crucial importance of gene-environment interactions in relation to resilience, a wide range of research strategies spanning psychosocial and biological methods is needed. Five main implications stem from the research to date: (1) resistance to hazards may derive from controlled exposure to risk (rather than its avoidance); (2) resistance may derive from traits or circumstances that are without major effects in the absence of the relevant environmental hazards; (3) resistance may derive from physiological or psychological coping processes rather than external risk or protective factors; (4) delayed recovery may derive from "turning point" experiences in adult life; and (5) resilience may be constrained by biological programming or damaging effects of stress/adversity on neural structures.