Abstract
Background
Studies suggest that distress is associated with various health conditions such as hypertension, asthma, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. However, only few studies focused on Asian Americans and little is known about the association with multiple comorbidity.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis among 400 Chinese and Korean American participants (aged 50–75 years) of the STOP CRC randomized controlled trial. Perceived distress was assessed using the distress thermometer scale (range 0–10). Disease diagnosis was self-reported by the participants. Multimorbidity (MM) was defined as having ≥2 chronic conditions. Complex multimorbidity (CMM) was defined as having ≥3 of the following body system disorders: circulation disorder, endocrine-metabolic disorder, cancer, anxiety or depression, breathing problem, and other health problems. We performed logistic regression for CMM and Poisson regression with robust error variance for MM to estimate associations with distress, adjusting for potential confounders.
Results
The mean age was 58.4 years and mean distress score was 3.65. One-unit increase in distress score was associated with a 1.22-fold increase in the odds of having CMM (95% CI: 1.04–1.42). The magnitude of association slightly increased after additional adjustment for socioeconomic factors and health insurance status (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.10–1.52). Higher distress score was positively associated with MM but the association was only marginally significant (PR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99–1.10), adjusting for socioeconomic factors and health insurance status.
Conclusion
Our data suggest that higher perceived distress may be associated with simultaneous dysfunction of multiple distinct body systems among Chinese and Korean American older adults.
Introduction
Distress refers to a spectrum of negative emotional experience, ranging from normal feelings of vulnerability, sadness, and fear to more severe problems such as anxiety, panic, and depression [1–3]. Distress is an important, yet overlooked, public health problem in Asian Americans. Studies reported that major sources of distress in Asian Americans are perceived racial discrimination and accultrative stress [4]. Discrimination and violence against Asians have particularly heightened since the COVID-19 pandemic [5,6]. The prevalence of Asian Americans experiencing distress also dramatically increased during the post-pandemic period [7]. Despite the growing concerns, Asian Americans are less likely to seek heath care services for mental health conditions compared with the general U.S. population [8,9], resulting in under-reported prevalence and delayed treatment. In some traditional Asian cultures, mental health problems are considered as shameful and a failure of emotional self-control [10,11]. Such mental health stigma, as well as language barrier and limited access to reliable information and resources, may discourage Asian Americans from seeking mental health care [11]. Therefore, to prevent the potential harms, it is important to fully understand the negative health effects of distress in Asian Americans.
Studies have shown that distress is associated with various health conditions such as sleep disturbance [12], asthma [13], and high blood pressure [14]. Distress can also promote the adoption of unhealthy behaviors [15,16], such as smoking [17], heavy alcohol drinking [18], and poor diet [19], all of which are important risk factors for various chronic diseases [20,21]. In prospective studies, distress was associated with increased risks of coronary heart disease [22], type 2 diabetes [23–25], and all-cause mortality [26]. However, only few studies focused on Asian Americans, whom may have different sources of distress and varying degree of severity and chronicity of conditions compared with the general U.S. population. Further, while distress may have systemic effects (e.g., chronic inflammation [27], DNA damage [28], microbiome imbalance [29]) that can simultaneously influence multiple organs of our body, little is known about the association of distress with multiple comorbidity. Multiple comorbidity requires the integrated care, often from multiple specialists. Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to experience unmet medical needs for multiple comorbidity due to language barrier, lack of health insurance, and limited access to health care services [30]. Multiple comorbidity also contributes to poorer health outcomes, reduced quality of life [31], and higher healthcare cost [32], and thus more efforts should focus on the prevention by effectively targeting risk factors.
In this study, we examined the association between distress and multiple comorbidity in Chinese and Korean American older adults (aged 50–75 years), two of the largest Asian American subgroups in the US. While most studies focused on the association with a single disease, we investigated the association with multiple comorbidity using two different measures, multimorbidity (MM) and complex multimorbidity (CMM). MM indicates the co-occurrence of two or more chronic conditions. While MM is a simple measure based on the number of diseases within an individual, CMM indicates the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems [33] that require cares from different specialists. CMM may also indicate more severe health conditions and contribute to lower quality of life. CMM may provide additional information beyond MM by reflecting relevant pathogenic pathways and identifying the high-risk population with higher healthcare needs. Further, because sociodemographic factors, acculturation, sleep disorders, and health insurance status can influence individual’s response to distress, access to care, and susceptibility to chronic conditions, we also examined whether the associations are modified by these variables.
Methods
Study population
This analysis used the baseline data from 400 Chinese and Korean American participants (200 Chinese and 200 Korean Americans) of a randomized controlled trial called Screening To Prevent ColoRectal Cancer (STOP CRC) among At-Risk Asian American Primary Care Patients. Details of the study are described elsewhere [34]. Study participants were between the ages of 50 and 75 years, living in the Baltimore-Washington DC Metropolitan Area, and they were recruited from primary care physicians’ clinics in Maryland and Northern Virginia. The baseline survey data were collected from August 2018 to June 2020. For the current analysis, data were accessed from January to October 2022. Participants completed the survey either in-person or by phone in their preferred language (Mandarin, Korean, or English) after signing written informed consent forms. Eighty-nine percent of participants completed a self-administered questionnaire in-person; while 11% of participants completed a research assistant-led phone survey because of the COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020. In sensitivity analysis, we compared the results after excluding participants who responded via phone survey (n = 45; results are presented in S5 and S6 Tables). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Maryland, College Park and the University of California, Irvine.
Multimorbidity
Our dependent variables of interest were multimorbidity (MM) and complex multimorbidity (CMM) [35]. Participants were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor in the past year that they had following 10 health problems or conditions: (1) high blood pressure, (2) high cholesterol, (3) heart attack or any other heart disease, (4) cancer, (5) stroke, (6) diabetes, (7) obesity, (8) anxiety or depression, (9) breathing problem such as asthma or emphysema, and (10) any other health problems. Using this information, we created two binary variables, MM and CMM. MM was defined as having two or more of the 10 chronic conditions. CMM [35,36] was defined as having three or more of the following body system disorders: (1) endocrine-metabolic disorder (diabetes, obesity, or high cholesterol), (2) circulation disorder (high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack or any other heart disease), (3) cancer, (4) anxiety or depression, (5) breathing problem, and (6) other health problems. In sensitivity analysis, we re-defined CMM by excluding “other health problems” from the list of body system disorders (results are presented in S4 Table).
Perceived distress
Distress is a subjective measure of perceived stress [2]. Level of overall perceived distress was assessed using the distress thermometer, a 0–10 visual analogue scale vertically oriented in the form of a thermometer (0 at the bottom indicating “no distress” and 10 at the top indicating “extreme distress”) [37]. Participants were asked to circle the number that best described how much distress they had been experiencing in the past week including the day of interview. Distress was used as a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater distress. In secondary analysis, we also categorized distress into 3 groups (low: ≤2; moderate: 3–5; high: ≥6) and compared across categories (results from secondary analyses are presented in S3 Table). The distress thermometer was derived from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DTPL) and has been validly used in many psycho-oncological and non-oncological research settings across different cultures [37–39].
Covariates
Sociodemographic characteristics including age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, employment status, and health insurance status were self-reported at baseline. Age was used as a continuous variable in years. Sex was categorized as male and female. Asian subgroup was classified as Chinese and Korean. Education was grouped into three categories: high school/GED or less, business/vocational school/some college/college graduate, and some graduate/professional school. We categorized household income into three groups: <$40,000, $40,000-$99,999, and ≥ $100,000. Marital status was used as a binary variable: married/cohabiting (including married and living as married) and not currently married (including never married, widowed, divorced, and separated). Employment status was calssified as full-time, part-time, and not employed. Health insurance status was categorized as private health insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and no health insurance. Sleep characteristics (sleep disturbance, sleep apnea, and sleep duration) were self-reported at baseline [34] and evaluated as effect modifiers in the analysis. Sleep disturbance was assessed using the adult 8-item version of the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [40] and categorized into a binary variable (none to slight, mild/moderate/severe). Sleep apnea was assessed using the modified Berlin sleep apnea score [41] and categorized as low risk and high risk. Sleep duration was categorized as <6 and ≥6 hours.
Statistical analysis
First, we conducted a descriptive analysis for the overall sample and after stratification by the level of CMM. Means and standard errors were calculated for continuous variables. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. To compare the differences between subgroups, two sample t-tests were conducted for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Second, we used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between distress and CMM. For MM, we used Poission regression models with a robust error variance to estimate prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidene interval (CI) because MM was a common outcome with the prevalence of 38.3% in our study population. In a cross-sectional analysis with a common binary outcome (e.g., prevalence >10%), logistic regression can result in overestimated associations and Poisson regression models with a robust error variance may provide a better alternative [42,43]. For CMM, we also performed Poission regression models with a robust error variance in the sensitivity analysis (results are presented in S2 Table). For each outcome, multivariable models included the following variables: Model 1 included age; Model 2 added demographic factors (sex, Asian subgroup, marital status) to the Model 1; Model 3 added socioeconomic factors (education, household income, and employment status) to the Model 2; Model 4 added health insurance status to the Model 3. Then, we examined effect modification by age (< vs. ≥ mean age of 58 years), sex (male vs. female), Asian subgroup (Chinese vs. Korean Americans), socioeconomic factors (i.e., education, household income), acculturation levels (i.e., years in the U.S., self-rated English proficiency, self-rated accultration), health insurance status (with vs. without), and sleep patterns (i.e., sleep apnea, sleep disturbance, sleep duration). We also tested for interaction using the Wald test for interaction terms in the fully-adjusted models (stratified results with p-interaction<0.1 are presented in Table 5 and others in S7 Table). All statistical analyses were computed using Stata version 14.2.
Results
Study population
Table 1 displays the characteristics of study participants. Among 400 participants, the mean age was 58.4 years and 52.8% were female. The mean distress score was 3.65 and the prevalence of MM and CMM were 38.3% and 8.3%, respectively. Compared to participants without CMM, participants with CMM were more likley to be older (mean: 61.97 vs. 58.07 years) and have higher mean distress score (4.55 vs. 3.57). Participants with CMM were also less likely to be working full-time (30.3% vs. 60.2%) and having private health insurance (42.4% vs. 62.4%).
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants (n = 400).
Total | Complex multimorbidity | p-value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Absent | Present | |||
n = 400 (100%) | n = 367 (91.8%) | n = 33 (8.3%) | ||
Distress, mean (SE) (range: 0–10) | 3.65 (0.12) | 3.57 (0.12) | 4.55 (0.46) | 0.03 |
Age, mean (SE) | 58.39 (0.32) | 58.07 (0.32) | 61.97 (1.20) | 0.001 |
Sex, n (%) | ||||
Female | 211 (52.8) | 189 (51.5) | 22 (66.7) | 0.09 |
Male | 189 (47.3) | 178 (48.5) | 11 (33.3) | |
Asian subgroup, n (%) | ||||
Chinese | 200 (50.0) | 187 (51.0) | 13 (39.4) | 0.20 |
Korean | 200 (50.0) | 180 (49.1) | 20 (60.6) | |
Marital status, n (%) | ||||
Not currently married | 59 (14.8) | 56 (15.3) | 3 (9.1) | 0.34 |
Married/cohabiting | 341 (85.3) | 311 (84.7) | 30 (90.9) | |
Education, n (%) | ||||
High school/GED or less | 134 (33.5) | 120 (32.7) | 14 (42.4) | 0.10 |
Business/vocational school/some college/college graduate | 169 (42.3) | 153 (41.7) | 16 (48.5) | |
Some graduate/professional school | 97 (24.3) | 94 (25.6) | 3 (9.1) | |
Household income, n (%) | ||||
<$40,000 | 126 (31.5) | 113 (30.8) | 13 (39.4) | 0.59 |
$40,000–99,999 | 166 (41.5) | 154 (42.0) | 12 (36.4) | |
≥$100,000 | 108 (27.0) | 100 (27.3) | 8 (24.2) | |
Employment status, n (%) | ||||
Working full-time | 231 (57.8) | 221 (60.2) | 10 (30.3) | 0.001 |
Working part-time | 84 (21.0) | 76 (20.7) | 8 (24.2) | |
Not currently working | 85 (21.3) | 70 (19.1) | 15 (45.5) | |
Health insurance status, n (%) | ||||
Private health insurance | 243 (60.8) | 229 (62.4) | 14 (42.4) | 0.04 |
Medicare/Medicaid | 74 (18.5) | 63 (17.2) | 11 (33.3) | |
No health insurance | 83 (20.8) | 75 (20.4) | 8 (24.2) |
Note: SE = standard error.
Complex multimorbidity was defined as the coexistence of 3 or more of the following body system disorders: (1) circulation disorder (high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack or any other heart disease), (2) endocrine-metabolic disorder (diabetes, obesity, or high cholesterol), (3) cancer, (4) anxiety or depression, (5) breathing problem, and (6) any other health problems.
Table 2 presents the prevalence of individual chronic conditions and body system disorders in the study population. Among the 10 chronic conditions assessed in the study, high cholesterol (41.5%) was the most prevalent condition, followed by high blood pressure (34.0%) and diabetes (20.0%). Endocrine-metabolic disorder (51.0%) and circulation disorder (35.5%) were the most prevalent body system disorders. Although the prevalence of most chronic conditions were higher in Korean American participants, the overall disease profile was similar between Korean and Chinee American participants (S1 Table).
Table 2. Prevalence of individual chronic conditions and body system disorders in the study population (n = 400).
Frequency | % | |
---|---|---|
Individual chronic condition a | ||
High blood pressure | 136 | 34.0 |
High cholesterol | 166 | 41.5 |
Heart attack or any other heart disease | 24 | 6.0 |
Cancer | 10 | 2.5 |
Stroke | 7 | 1.8 |
Diabetes | 80 | 20.0 |
Obesity | 57 | 14.3 |
Anxiety or depression | 23 | 5.8 |
Breathing problem | 18 | 4.5 |
Any other health problems | 47 | 11.8 |
Body system disorder b | ||
Endocrine-metabolic disorder | 204 | 51.0 |
Circulation disorder | 142 | 35.5 |
Cancer | 10 | 2.5 |
Anxiety or depression | 23 | 5.8 |
Breathing problem | 18 | 4.5 |
Other health problems | 47 | 11.8 |
a, b Prevalence was based on participants’ multiple choices.
b Body system was categorized as follows: (1) circulation disorder (high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack or any other heart disease) (2) endocrine-metabolic disorder (diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol) (3) cancer (4) anxiety or depression (5) breathing problem (6) any other health problems.
Association between distress and complex multimorbidity
Table 3 shows ORs and 95% CIs for the association between distress and CMM. Distress score was positively associated with CMM across all models. In Model 1, one-unit increase in distress score was associated with a 1.22-fold increase in the odds of having CMM (95% CI: 1.04–1.42). The magnitude of association slightly increased after additional adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic factors (Model 3: OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.09–1.51). No further change in the association was observed after further adjustment for health insurance status (Model 4: OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.10–1.52). When Poisson regression models with a robust error variance was performed, we observed similar results (S2 Table). In the fully-adjusted model, one-unit increase in distress score was associated with a 1.24-fold increase in the prevalence of CMM (95% CI: 1.09–1.41). When we analyzed using a categorical variable of distress, distress scores of 3–5 (PR: 1.84; 95% CI: 0.80–4.25) and ≥6 (PR: 3.17; 95% CI: 1.35–7.41), compared with score ≤2, were both positively associated with CMM but the association was statistically significant for distress score of ≥6 only (S3 Table). We observed similar results after excluding “other health problems” from the definition of CMM (S4 Table) and after excluding participants who responded via phone survey (S5 and S6 Tables).
Table 3. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between distress and complex multimorbidity (n = 400).
Complex multimorbidity (CMM)a | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI)b | ||||
Model 1c | Model 2d | Model 3e | Model 4f | |
Distress score | ||||
Per 1-unit increase | 1.22 (1.04–1.42) | 1.22 (1.05–1.43) | 1.29 (1.09–1.51) | 1.29 (1.10–1.52) |
Age | ||||
Per 1-year increase | 1.11 (1.04–1.17) | 1.11 (1.05–1.18) | 1.09 (1.01–1.16) | 1.08 (1.00–1.17) |
Sex | ||||
Male | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Female | 2.26 (1.03–4.94) | 1.47 (0.62–3.46) | 1.51 (0.64–3.60) | |
Asian subgroup | ||||
Korean | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Chinese | 0.86 (0.40–1.85) | 0.87 (0.38–2.00) | 0.85 (0.36–1.99) | |
Marital status | ||||
Married/cohabiting | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Not currently married | 0.32 (0.09–1.19) | 0.40 (0.10–1.56) | 0.42 (0.11–1.60) | |
Education | ||||
High school/GED or less | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
Business/vocational school/some college/college graduate | 0.83 (0.35–1.99) | 0.86 (0.36–2.05) | ||
Some graduate/professional school | 0.25 (0.05–1.13) | 0.25 (0.06–1.15) | ||
Household income | ||||
<$40,000 | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
$40,000–99,999 | 0.96 (0.36–2.53) | 0.94 (0.35–2.53) | ||
≥$100,000 | 2.86 (0.84–9.72) | 3.55 (0.97–12.92) | ||
Employment status | ||||
Working full time | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
Working part time | 2.56 (0.87–7.52) | 2.62 (0.88–7.80) | ||
Not currently working | 3.40 (1.21–9.53) | 3.32 (1.17–9.42) | ||
Health insurance status | ||||
Private health insurance | 1.00 (Ref) | |||
Medicare/Medicaid | 1.41 (0.46–4.33) | |||
No health insurance | 1.85 (0.65–5.27) |
a Complex multimorbidity was defined as having three or more of the following body system disorders: (1) endocrine-metabolic disorder (diabetes, obesity, or high cholesterol), (2) circulation disorder (high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack or any other heart disease), (3) cancer, (4) anxiety or depression, (5) breathing problem, and (6) any other health problems.
b Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the logistic regression models.
c Model 1 adjusted for age.
d Model 2 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, and marital status.
e Model 3 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, and employment status.
f Model 4 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, employment status, and health insurance status.
Among the covariates, older age was associated with higher odds of CMM across all models (Table 3). Being female was also positively associated with CMM, but the association was statistically significant only in the Model 2 (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.03–4.94). Not currently working compared to working full time was associated with higher odds of CMM in both Model 3 (OR: 3.40; 95% CI: 1.21–9.53) and Model 4 (OR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.17–9.42).
Association between distress and multimorbidity
Table 4 presents the association between distress and MM. Higher distress score was positively associated with MM but the association was only marginally significant (Model 4: PR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99–1.10). Similar to the results for CMM in Table 3, age was positively associated with MM across all models. Compared to participants who had less than high school education, those who attended graduate or professional school had lower prevalene of MM (Model 4: PR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43–0.99). Compared to those employed full-time, those who were not working had higher prevalence of MM (Model 4: PR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.02–1.98).
Table 4. Prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between distress and multimorbidity (n = 400).
Multimorbidity (MM)a | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
PR (95% CI)b | ||||
Model 1c | Model 2d | Model 3e | Model 4f | |
Distress score | ||||
Per 1-unit increase | 1.03 (0.98–1.08) | 1.03 (0.98–1.08) | 1.04 (0.99–1.10) | 1.04 (0.99–1.10) |
Age | ||||
Per 1-year increase | 1.04 (1.03–1.06) | 1.04 (1.02–1.06) | 1.03 (1.01–1.06) | 1.03 (1.01–1.06) |
Sex | ||||
Male | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Female | 1.06 (0.83–1.37) | 0.93 (0.71–1.22) | 0.93 (0.71–1.22) | |
Asian subgroup | ||||
Korean | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Chinese | 0.84 (0.64–1.08) | 0.86 (0.66–1.13) | 0.85 (0.64–1.12) | |
Marital status | ||||
Married/cohabiting | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | |
Not currently married | 0.98 (0.69–1.38) | 1.03 (0.73–1.45) | 1.03 (0.73–1.46) | |
Education | ||||
High school/GED or less | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
Business/vocational school/some college/college graduate | 0.92 (0.70–1.22) | 0.92 (0.70–1.21) | ||
Some graduate/professional school | 0.66 (0.43–1.01) | 0.65 (0.43–0.99) | ||
Household income | ||||
<$40,000 | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
$40,000–99,999 | 1.01 (0.75–1.36) | 0.99 (0.74–1.34) | ||
≥$100,000 | 1.25 (0.86–1.82) | 1.26 (0.86–1.85) | ||
Employment status | ||||
Working full time | 1.00 (Ref) | 1.00 (Ref) | ||
Working part time | 1.42 (1.03–1.96) | 1.43 (1.03–1.97) | ||
Not currently working | 1.42 (1.02–1.96) | 1.42 (1.02–1.98) | ||
Health insurance status | ||||
Private health insurance | 1.00 (Ref) | |||
Medicare/Medicaid | 0.92 (0.64–1.33) | |||
No health insurance | 1.08 (0.79–1.48) |
a Multimorbidity was defined as having two or more of the following individual chronic conditions: (1) high blood pressure, (2) high cholesterol, (3) heart attack or any other heart disease, (4) cancer, (5) stroke, (6) diabetes, (7) obesity, (8) anxiety or depression, (9) breathing problem, and (10) any other health problems.
b Prevalence ratio and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the Poisson regression models with a robust error variance.
c Model 1 adjusted for age.
d Model 2 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, and marital status.
e Model 3 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, and employment status.
f Model 4 adjusted for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, employment status, and health insurance status.
Stratified analyses
When we stratified the analyses by potential effect modifiers, the positive association with CMM was slightly more pronounced in female parcitipants (p-interaction = 0.08) and the positive association with MM was restricted to younger participants (p-interaction = 0.09; Table 5). However, none of the interactions was statistically significant at alpha 0.05 (Table 5 and S7 Table).
Table 5. Associations of distress with complex multimorbidity (CMM) and multimorbidity (MM), stratified by age, sex, and health insurance status (n = 400).
Complex multimorbidity (CMM) | Multimorbidity (MM) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | OR (95% CI)a | p-int b | N | PR (95% CI)c | p-int b | |
Age | ||||||
<58 years | 197 | 1.17 (0.88–1.57) | 0.62 | 197 | 1.11 (1.03–1.21) | 0.09 |
≥58 years | 203 | 1.31 (1.07–1.61) | 203 | 1.01 (0.95–1.07) | ||
Sex | ||||||
Male | 189 | 1.09 (0.81–1.45) | 0.08 | 189 | 1.05 (0.98–1.13) | 0.85 |
Female | 211 | 1.45 (1.16–1.82) | 211 | 1.04 (0.97–1.11) | ||
Health insurance status | ||||||
Without health insurance | 83 | 1.66 (1.04–2.65) | 0.52 | 83 | 1.05 (0.95–1.16) | 0.08 |
With health insurance | 317 | 1.23 (1.02–1.49) | 317 | 1.06 (1.00–1.12) |
a Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, employment status, and health insurance status.
b p-interaction was estimated using Wald test for interaction terms
c Prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Poisson regression models with a robust error variance, adjusting for age, sex, Asian subgroup, marital status, education, household income, employment status, and health insurance status.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the association between distress and multiple comorbidity among Chinese and Korean Americans. In this cross-sectional analysis, we observed that higher perceived distress was associated with higher prevalence of CMM, indicated by the presence of 3 or more affected body systems. The associations were persistent after adjustment for demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and health insurance status. The positive direction of association was also observed between distress and MM but the association was not statistically significant. Our data suggest that higher perceived distress may be associated with simultaneous dysfunction of multiple distinct body systems in Chinese and Korean Americans.
Our finding of positive association between distress and CMM is consistent with the result from a previous study [44]. In a study of 238 patients from primary care clinics in Canada, higher level of distress was positively associated with cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS), the multiple comorbidity measure that accounted for affected organ system and disease severity (e.g., greater weights were given to more severe conditions) [44]. Similar to our finding, the association also persisted after the adjustment for socioeconomic status. Although low socioeconomic status such as unemployment may be a potential risk factor for CMM, these findings suggest that socioeconomic status is unlikely to fully explain the positive association we observed between distress and CMM. In addition, our analysis of categorical distress variable also showed a dose-response relationship with CMM, further supporting the positive association between distress and CMM.
However, among the studies that assessed multiple comorbidity based on a simple disease count [44–46], the results were mixed. In the studies from Northern India [45] and African Americans in the U.S. [46], distress was associated with a higher count of chronic conditions, while our study of Asian Americans and the previous study from Canada [44] did not observe a statistically significant association with the measure based on a simple disease count. The discrepancy in study findings may be due to the differences in study population (e.g., morbidity profile) and assessment method of multiple comorbidity. In the study from Northern India, the most prevalent condition among the study participants was anemia [45], showing a different morbidity profile compared with those observed in the U.S. and Canada. In our study, the most common body system disorder was endocrine-metabolic disorder, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol, among both Chinese and Korean American participants. In the study from African Americans in the U.S., hypertension and arthritis were the most common health conditions [46]. When assssing multiple comorbidity, different studies also used different lists of diseases. For example, the study from Canada [44] used a list of 14 different domains of diseases that were classified by affected body system (e.g., cardiac, respiratory, renal) while other studies used a list of individual chronic conditions (e.g., obesity, diabetes, hypertension) [45,46].
In our study, we observed a statistically significant association of distress with CMM but not with MM. It is likely that CMM is a better measure in differentiating the high-risk population than MM, as the prevalence of MM is already high in our study population. Further, by grouping diseases by the biologically relevant body system, CMM is likely a more reliable measure of multiple comorbidity. Misclassification is less likely to occur when assessing groups of closely-related diseases compared with when assessing individual diseases.
There are several potential mechanisms that may explain the adverse effects of distress on multiple comorbidity. First, distress may simultaneously increase the risks of multiple chronic conditions through biological effects that influence multiple organs of our body. Distress can disrupt the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis [47], leading to increased secretion of cortisol [48]. Elevated levels of cortisol are associated with sleep disturbance [49], immune suppression [50], appetite dysregulation [51], and chronic inflammation [52]. These changes may lead to altered glucose metabolism [53] and increase the risks of different chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes [23–25], cardiovascular disease [54], and certain cancers [55]. Sleep disturbance and poor sleep quality are associated with weight gain [56], high blood pressure [57], and mortality [58–60]. Distress can also disrupt the balance of gut microbiome by releasing stress hormones and creating pro-inflammatory environment [29]. Some gut bacteria can release toxins that have detrimental effects on cardiometabolic health [61,62]. Second, distress can also indirectly increase the risks of multiple chronic conditions by promoting the adoption of unhealthy behaviors [15,16]. Cravings for unhealthy foods, heavy alcohol drinking, smoking, and substance abuse are often used as coping methods for distress. Lastly, distress may make the management of disease more difficult, resulting in development of disease-related complications and poor health outcomes. Studies have shown that individuals experiencing distress are more likely to show a lower adherence to treatment [63], leading to worsening of disease severity and outcomes.
This study has important strengths. By using a subjective measure of distress, we were able to include less severe conditions that may not have been clinically diagnosed among Asian Americans with low utilization of mental health care. The single-item distress scale may also better reflect the individual’s overall perception of stressors. In our analysis, we also showed the robustness of our study results. The association between distress and CMM persisted after the adjustment for various demographic and socioeconomic factors.
We also acknowledge several limitations of this study. First, given the cross-sectional study design, the temporal relationship between distress and multiple comorbidity is unclear. Having diagnosed with several chronic conditions can also lead to development of distress [64]. Because the bidirectional relationship is possible, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm our results. Second, we used the self-reported data of physician-diagnosed diseases. The data may be subject to measurement error if study participants did not accurately remember the diagnosis. It is also possible that some health conditions may have been under-reported among individuals with infrequent clinic visit. Twenty-one percent of our study participants did not have health insurance, suggesting that these individuals are likely to have lower health care utilization compared with the general U.S. population. It is also possible that the COVID-19 pandemic reduced access to medical care, leading to underdiagnosis of mental and physical health conditions and thereby underestimation of the associations. However, in our study, only a small portion of data (11%, n = 45) were collected via phone survey during the pendemic, while the rest of data were collected via self-administered questionnaire before the pandemic. Although the accuracy of data may be different between the two methods, our sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were similar when we restricted the analysis to the data collected via self-administered questionnaire. Lastly, our study population included Chinese and Korean Americans aged 50–75 years and thus our study results may not be generalizable to other racial populations or younger age groups with different severity of distress and susceptibility to chronic conditions.
In summary, we observed that higher perceived distress was associated with higher prevalence of multiple comorbidity measured by CMM among Chinese and Korean Americans. Our data provide additional insights into the potential risk factors for multiple comorbidity. Our data also highlight the importance of raising awareness on distress and related mental health problems and promoting utilization of mental health care among Asian American older adults.
Supporting information
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available upon reasonable request. Data are available from the Institutional Data Access/ Ethics (IRB) Committees at the University of Maryland College Park and the University of California Irvine for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The dataset is composed of sociodemographic, behavioral, and health data of 400 Chinese and Korean Americans. These data were collected via survey. The restriction is based on ethical reasons. IRB approval and Informed consent to participate in the study indicate that data would not be shared with anyone outside the research team. Data access requests can be sent to IRB@uci.edu.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Minority Health And Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health in the form of an award to SL [R01MD012778] and by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) in the form of a grant to HO [RS-2023-00219289]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Ridner SH. Psychological distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2004;45(5):536–45. Epub 2004/03/11. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02938.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vitek L, Rosenzweig MQ, Stollings S. Distress in patients with cancer: definition, assessment, and suggested interventions. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11(3):413–8. Epub 2007/07/12. doi: 10.1188/07.CJON.413-418 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.NCCN practice guidelines for the management of psychosocial distress. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Oncology (Williston Park). 1999;13(5A):113–47. Epub 1999/06/17. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhang W, Hong S. Perceived discrimination and psychological distress among Asian Americans: does education matter? J Immigr Minor Health. 2013;15(5):932–43. Epub 2012/07/07. doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9676-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Shang Z, Kim JY, Cheng SO. Discrimination experienced by Asian Canadian and Asian American health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. CMAJ Open. 2021;9(4):E998–E1004. Epub 2021/11/18. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20210090 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kim M, Liu S, Lee Y, Shrader CH, Kanamori M. COVID-19 Related Racial Discrimination in Small Asian Communities: A Cross Sectional Study. J Immigr Minor Health. 2022;24(1):38–47. Epub 2021/10/17. doi: 10.1007/s10903-021-01295-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lozano P, Rueger SY, Lam H, Louie N, Southworth A, Maene C, et al. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Two Asian American Ethnic Groups. J Immigr Minor Health. 2022;24(4):909–17. Epub 2021/10/14. doi: 10.1007/s10903-021-01287-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jang Y, Yoon H, Park NS, Rhee MK, Chiriboga DA. Mental Health Service Use and Perceived Unmet Needs for Mental Health Care in Asian Americans. Community Ment Health J. 2019;55(2):241–8. Epub 2018/10/26. doi: 10.1007/s10597-018-0348-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yang KG, Rodgers CRR, Lee E, Le Cook B. Disparities in Mental Health Care Utilization and Perceived Need Among Asian Americans: 2012–2016. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(1):21–7. Epub 2019/10/03. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900126 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kramer EJ, Kwong K, Lee E, Chung H. Cultural factors influencing the mental health of Asian Americans. West J Med. 2002;176(4):227–31. Epub 2002/09/05. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lee S, Juon HS, Martinez G, Hsu CE, Robinson ES, Bawa J, et al. Model minority at risk: expressed needs of mental health by Asian American young adults. J Community Health. 2009;34(2):144–52. Epub 2008/10/22. doi: 10.1007/s10900-008-9137-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chueh KH, Chen KR, Lin YH. Psychological Distress and Sleep Disturbance Among Female Nurses: Anxiety or Depression? J Transcult Nurs. 2021;32(1):14–20. Epub 2019/10/19. doi: 10.1177/1043659619881491 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gillaspy SR, Hoff AL, Mullins LL, Van Pelt JC, Chaney JM. Psychological distress in high-risk youth with asthma. J Pediatr Psychol. 2002;27(4):363–71. Epub 2002/05/03. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/27.4.363 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ojike N, Sowers JR, Seixas A, Ravenell J, Rodriguez-Figueroa G, Awadallah M, et al. Psychological Distress and Hypertension: Results from the National Health Interview Survey for 2004–2013. Cardiorenal Med. 2016;6(3):198–208. Epub 2016/06/09. doi: 10.1159/000443933 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Krueger PM, Chang VW. Being poor and coping with stress: health behaviors and the risk of death. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(5):889–96. Epub 2008/04/03. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.114454 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Michels N, Sioen I, Boone L, Braet C, Vanaelst B, Huybrechts I, et al. Longitudinal association between child stress and lifestyle. Health Psychol. 2015;34(1):40–50. Epub 2014/08/19. doi: 10.1037/hea0000108 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lawrence D, Mitrou F, Zubrick SR. Non-specific psychological distress, smoking status and smoking cessation: United States National Health Interview Survey 2005. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:256. Epub 2011/04/26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-256 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Holahan CJ, Moos RH, Holahan CK, Cronkite RC, Randall PK. Drinking to cope, emotional distress and alcohol use and abuse: a ten-year model. J Stud Alcohol. 2001;62(2):190–8. Epub 2001/05/01. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.190 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shawon MSR, Jahan E, Rouf RR, Hossain FB. Psychological distress and unhealthy dietary behaviours among adolescents aged 12–15 years in nine South-East Asian countries: a secondary analysis of the Global School-Based Health Survey data. Br J Nutr. 2022:1–10. Epub 2022/07/21. doi: 10.1017/S0007114522002306 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.VanWormer JJ, Boucher JL, Sidebottom AC, Sillah A, Knickelbine T. Lifestyle changes and prevention of metabolic syndrome in the Heart of New Ulm Project. Prev Med Rep. 2017;6:242–5. Epub 2017/04/06. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.03.018 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Del Gobbo LC, Kalantarian S, Imamura F, Lemaitre R, Siscovick DS, Psaty BM, et al. Contribution of Major Lifestyle Risk Factors for Incident Heart Failure in Older Adults: The Cardiovascular Health Study. JACC Heart Fail. 2015;3(7):520–8. Epub 2015/07/15. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2015.02.009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Stansfeld SA, Fuhrer R, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG. Psychological distress as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in the Whitehall II Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):248–55. Epub 2002/03/27. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.248 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Eriksson AK, Ekbom A, Granath F, Hilding A, Efendic S, Ostenson CG. Psychological distress and risk of pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes in a prospective study of Swedish middle-aged men and women. Diabet Med. 2008;25(7):834–42. Epub 2008/06/03. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02463.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li C, Liu JC, Xiao X, Chen X, Yue S, Yu H, et al. Psychological distress and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 4-year policemen cohort study in China. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e014235. Epub 2017/01/31. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014235 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Virtanen M, Ferrie JE, Tabak AG, Akbaraly TN, Vahtera J, Singh-Manoux A, et al. Psychological distress and incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk and low-risk populations: the Whitehall II Cohort Study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2091–7. Epub 2014/05/03. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2725 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Yang L, Zhao M, Magnussen CG, Veeranki SP, Xi B. Psychological distress and mortality among US adults: prospective cohort study of 330 367 individuals. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74(4):384–90. Epub 2020/01/30. doi: 10.1136/jech-2019-213144 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lawn RB, Murchland AR, Kim Y, Chibnik LB, Tworoger SS, Rimm EB, et al. Trauma, psychological distress and markers of systemic inflammation among US women: A longitudinal study. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2022;145:105915. Epub 2022/09/18. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2022.105915 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Flint MS, Baum A, Chambers WH, Jenkins FJ. Induction of DNA damage, alteration of DNA repair and transcriptional activation by stress hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007;32(5):470–9. Epub 2007/04/27. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.02.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Madison A, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Stress, depression, diet, and the gut microbiota: human-bacteria interactions at the core of psychoneuroimmunology and nutrition. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2019;28:105–10. Epub 2020/05/13. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lee S, Martinez G, Ma GX, Hsu CE, Robinson ES, Bawa J, et al. Barriers to health care access in 13 Asian American communities. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34(1):21–30. Epub 2009/08/12. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.34.1.3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Xuan J, Kirchdoerfer LJ, Boyer JG, Norwood GJ. Effects of comorbidity on health-related quality-of-life scores: an analysis of clinical trial data. Clin Ther. 1999;21(2):383–403. Epub 1999/04/22. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)88295-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cortaredona S, Ventelou B. The extra cost of comorbidity: multiple illnesses and the economic burden of non-communicable diseases. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):216. Epub 2017/12/10. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0978-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Harrison C, Henderson J, Miller G, Britt H. The prevalence of complex multimorbidity in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40(3):239–44. Epub 2016/03/31. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12509 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lee S, Ryu S, Lee GE, Kawachi I, Morey BN, Slopen N. The association of acculturative stress with self-reported sleep disturbance and sleep duration among Asian Americans. Sleep. 2022;45(4). Epub 2021/12/19. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab298 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Storeng SH, Vinjerui KH, Sund ER, Krokstad S. Associations between complex multimorbidity, activities of daily living and mortality among older Norwegians. A prospective cohort study: the HUNT Study, Norway. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):21. Epub 2020/01/23. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-1425-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kato D, Kawachi I, Saito J, Kondo N. Complex multimorbidity and mortality in Japan: a prospective propensity-matched cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e046749. Epub 2021/08/04. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046749 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Donovan KA, Grassi L, McGinty HL, Jacobsen PB. Validation of the distress thermometer worldwide: state of the science. Psychooncology. 2014;23(3):241–50. Epub 2014/08/28. doi: 10.1002/pon.3430 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tang LL, Zhang YN, Pang Y, Zhang HW, Song LL. Validation and reliability of distress thermometer in chinese cancer patients. Chin J Cancer Res. 2011;23(1):54–8. Epub 2011/03/01. doi: 10.1007/s11670-011-0054-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sousa H, Oliveira J, Figueiredo D, Ribeiro O. The clinical utility of the Distress Thermometer in non-oncological contexts: A scoping review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(15–16):2131–50. Epub 2021/02/09. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15698 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Buysse DJ, Yu L, Moul DE, Germain A, Stover A, Dodds NE, et al. Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments. Sleep. 2010;33(6):781–92. Epub 2010/06/17. doi: 10.1093/sleep/33.6.781 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Netzer NC, Stoohs RA, Netzer CM, Clark K, Strohl KP. Using the Berlin Questionnaire to identify patients at risk for the sleep apnea syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(7):485–91. Epub 1999/10/03. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-7-199910050-00002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Barros AJD, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2003;3(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Tamhane AR, Westfall AO, Burkholder GA, Cutter GR. Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences. Stat Med. 2016;35(30):5730–5. Epub 2016/07/28. doi: 10.1002/sim.7059 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Lapointe L, Dubois MF, Almirall J. Psychological distress and multimorbidity in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(5):417–22. Epub 2006/09/28. doi: 10.1370/afm.528 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Joshi K, Kumar R, Avasthi A. Morbidity profile and its relationship with disability and psychological distress among elderly people in Northern India. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(6):978–87. Epub 2003/12/19. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg204 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Johnson EH. Psychiatric morbidity and health problems among black Americans: a national survey. J Natl Med Assoc. 1989;81(12):1217–23. Epub 1989/12/01. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Smith SM, Vale WW. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(4):383–95. Epub 2007/02/13. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.4/ssmith . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Kirschbaum C, Prussner JC, Stone AA, Federenko I, Gaab J, Lintz D, et al. Persistent high cortisol responses to repeated psychological stress in a subpopulation of healthy men. Psychosom Med. 1995;57(5):468–74. Epub 1995/09/01. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199509000-00009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hirotsu C, Tufik S, Andersen ML. Interactions between sleep, stress, and metabolism: From physiological to pathological conditions. Sleep Sci. 2015;8(3):143–52. Epub 2016/01/19. doi: 10.1016/j.slsci.2015.09.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Segerstrom SC, Miller GE. Psychological stress and the human immune system: a meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychol Bull. 2004;130(4):601–30. Epub 2004/07/15. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.601 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Chao AM, Jastreboff AM, White MA, Grilo CM, Sinha R. Stress, cortisol, and other appetite-related hormones: Prospective prediction of 6-month changes in food cravings and weight. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2017;25(4):713–20. Epub 2017/03/30. doi: 10.1002/oby.21790 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Liu YZ, Wang YX, Jiang CL. Inflammation: The Common Pathway of Stress-Related Diseases. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:316. Epub 2017/07/06. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00316 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Kuo T, McQueen A, Chen TC, Wang JC. Regulation of Glucose Homeostasis by Glucocorticoids. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;872:99–126. Epub 2015/07/29. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2895-8_5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Rasul F, Stansfeld SA, Hart CL, Davey Smith G. Psychological distress, physical illness, and risk of coronary heart disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(2):140–5. Epub 2005/01/15. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.019786 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Larsson SC, Lee WH, Kar S, Burgess S, Allara E. Assessing the role of cortisol in cancer: a wide-ranged Mendelian randomisation study. Br J Cancer. 2021;125(7):1025–9. Epub 2021/07/29. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01505-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Patel SR, Malhotra A, White DP, Gottlieb DJ, Hu FB. Association between reduced sleep and weight gain in women. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(10):947–54. Epub 2006/08/18. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj280 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Makarem N, Alcantara C, Williams N, Bello NA, Abdalla M. Effect of Sleep Disturbances on Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2021;77(4):1036–46. Epub 2021/02/23. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14479 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Rod NH, Vahtera J, Westerlund H, Kivimaki M, Zins M, Goldberg M, et al. Sleep disturbances and cause-specific mortality: Results from the GAZEL cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(3):300–9. Epub 2011/01/05. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq371 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Kwon S, Lee H, Lee JT, Shin MJ, Choi S, Oh H. Sleep duration and mortality in Korean adults: a population-based prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1623. Epub 2020/10/30. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09720-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Lovato N, Lack L. Insomnia and mortality: A meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2019;43:71–83. Epub 2018/12/12. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2018.10.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Witkowski M, Weeks TL, Hazen SL. Gut Microbiota and Cardiovascular Disease. Circ Res. 2020;127(4):553–70. Epub 2020/08/09. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316242 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Yoshida N, Yamashita T, Hirata KI. Gut Microbiome and Cardiovascular Diseases. Diseases. 2018;6(3). Epub 2018/07/04. doi: 10.3390/diseases6030056 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Ciechanowski PS, Katon WJ, Russo JE. Depression and diabetes: impact of depressive symptoms on adherence, function, and costs. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(21):3278–85. Epub 2000/11/23. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.21.3278 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Wilson-Genderson M, Heid AR, Pruchno R. Onset of Multiple Chronic Conditions and Depressive Symptoms: A Life Events Perspective. Innov Aging. 2017;1(2):igx022. Epub 2018/11/28. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igx022 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available upon reasonable request. Data are available from the Institutional Data Access/ Ethics (IRB) Committees at the University of Maryland College Park and the University of California Irvine for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The dataset is composed of sociodemographic, behavioral, and health data of 400 Chinese and Korean Americans. These data were collected via survey. The restriction is based on ethical reasons. IRB approval and Informed consent to participate in the study indicate that data would not be shared with anyone outside the research team. Data access requests can be sent to IRB@uci.edu.