Exploring the Utility of a Real-Time Approach to Characterising Within-Person Fluctuations in Everyday Stress Responses.

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Stress and Health Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1002/smi.3501
Meynard John L Toledo, Matthew J Zawadzki, Stacey B Scott, Jillian A Johnson, David Marcusson-Clavertz, Jinhyuk Kim, Stephanie Lanza, David M Almeida, Martin J Sliwinski, Joshua M Smyth
{"title":"Exploring the Utility of a Real-Time Approach to Characterising Within-Person Fluctuations in Everyday Stress Responses.","authors":"Meynard John L Toledo, Matthew J Zawadzki, Stacey B Scott, Jillian A Johnson, David Marcusson-Clavertz, Jinhyuk Kim, Stephanie Lanza, David M Almeida, Martin J Sliwinski, Joshua M Smyth","doi":"10.1002/smi.3501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few studies have measured components of stress responses in real time-an essential step in designing just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we characterised stress response components to everyday stressors, including reactivity (the response following a stressor), recovery (the return towards baseline), and pile-up (the accumulation of stressors) (RRPs) by quantifying the dynamics of response indicators (i.e., subjective stress, negative affect, and perseverative cognition). To determine the utility of these novel measures in capturing and characterising acute moments of the stress response, this study evaluated the proportion of variance in RRPs attributed to (1) between-person, (2) between-days, and (3) within-day (momentary) levels. Healthy adults (n = 123; aged 35-65, 79% women, 91% non-Hispanic White) participated in a 14-day study assessing stress response via EMA 6 times a day. RRPs were constructed from 10,065 EMA reports. Multilevel models with moments nested within days nested within persons were used to partition variance in the RRPs. Reactivity and recovery indicators captured the most variation within-days (i.e., across moments; range 76%-80% and 87%-89%, respectively), with small amounts of variance between-person. For pile-up, variation was mostly observed between-days (range 60%-63%) and between-persons (range 27%-31%). In contrast, raw measures of stress response reflected substantial between-person (range 32%-54%) and within-day (range 34%-53%) variance. These results demonstrated that a person-specific approach to measuring stress response components (i.e., RRPs) can capture the dynamic within-person variation in stress response, as it occurs in real time, making it well-suited for use in novel just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":51175,"journal":{"name":"Stress and Health","volume":" ","pages":"e3501"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636429/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stress and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3501","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Few studies have measured components of stress responses in real time-an essential step in designing just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we characterised stress response components to everyday stressors, including reactivity (the response following a stressor), recovery (the return towards baseline), and pile-up (the accumulation of stressors) (RRPs) by quantifying the dynamics of response indicators (i.e., subjective stress, negative affect, and perseverative cognition). To determine the utility of these novel measures in capturing and characterising acute moments of the stress response, this study evaluated the proportion of variance in RRPs attributed to (1) between-person, (2) between-days, and (3) within-day (momentary) levels. Healthy adults (n = 123; aged 35-65, 79% women, 91% non-Hispanic White) participated in a 14-day study assessing stress response via EMA 6 times a day. RRPs were constructed from 10,065 EMA reports. Multilevel models with moments nested within days nested within persons were used to partition variance in the RRPs. Reactivity and recovery indicators captured the most variation within-days (i.e., across moments; range 76%-80% and 87%-89%, respectively), with small amounts of variance between-person. For pile-up, variation was mostly observed between-days (range 60%-63%) and between-persons (range 27%-31%). In contrast, raw measures of stress response reflected substantial between-person (range 32%-54%) and within-day (range 34%-53%) variance. These results demonstrated that a person-specific approach to measuring stress response components (i.e., RRPs) can capture the dynamic within-person variation in stress response, as it occurs in real time, making it well-suited for use in novel just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索用实时方法描述日常压力反应中的人际波动的实用性。
很少有研究对压力反应的组成部分进行实时测量--这是设计针对风险时刻的及时干预措施的必要步骤。利用生态瞬间评估(EMA),我们通过量化反应指标(即主观压力、负面情绪和持久认知)的动态变化,描述了日常压力源的压力反应成分,包括反应性(压力源后的反应)、恢复性(向基线的回归)和堆积性(压力源的累积)(RRPs)。为了确定这些新型测量方法在捕捉和描述压力反应的急性时刻方面的实用性,本研究评估了RRPs中归因于(1)人与人之间、(2)日与日之间和(3)日内(瞬间)水平的差异比例。健康成年人(n = 123;35-65 岁,79% 为女性,91% 为非西班牙裔白人)参加了一项为期 14 天的研究,通过每天 6 次的 EMA 评估压力反应。根据 10,065 份 EMA 报告构建了 RRP。采用时刻嵌套天嵌套人的多层次模型来划分 RRPs 中的方差。反应性和恢复性指标在日内(即跨时刻;范围分别为 76%-80% 和 87%-89%)的变异最大,人与人之间的变异较小。至于堆积指标,主要观察到的是不同天之间的差异(范围为 60%-63%)和不同人之间的差异(范围为 27%-31%)。与此相反,压力反应的原始测量结果反映了大量的人际差异(范围为 32%-54%)和日内差异(范围为 34%-53%)。这些结果表明,针对特定人群的压力反应成分(即 RRPs)测量方法可以捕捉到压力反应在人与人之间的动态变化,因为这种变化是实时发生的,因此非常适合用于针对风险时刻的新型及时干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Stress and Health
Stress and Health 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
91
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Stress is a normal component of life and a number of mechanisms exist to cope with its effects. The stresses that challenge man"s existence in our modern society may result in failure of these coping mechanisms, with resultant stress-induced illness. The aim of the journal therefore is to provide a forum for discussion of all aspects of stress which affect the individual in both health and disease. The Journal explores the subject from as many aspects as possible, so that when stress becomes a consideration, health information can be presented as to the best ways by which to minimise its effects.
期刊最新文献
Destructive Self-Leadership? Self-Leadership, Maladaptive Coping, and Stress in College Students. Global Research on Cyberchondria: Scientometric and Visual Analysis From 2003 to 2022. Psychological Distress, Resources, and Coping Strategies Among Evacuees and Non-Evacuees From an Armed Conflict Zone: A Network Analysis. Reflective Abstract Processing Reduces Negative Emotions Independent of Self-Perspective. The Impact of Physical Activity on the Disability-Related Stress of Individuals With Physical Disabilities: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1