Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Behav Med. 2011 Apr 19;35(1):74–85. doi: 10.1007/s10865-011-9345-5

Table 3.

Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analyses Regressing CRP Square Root Transformed on Chronic Stress Domains within Gender 1, and Binomial Logistic Regression Analyses Regressing CRP group on Chronic Stress Domains within Gender 2

Males Females
β(SE)1 OR2 95% CI2 β(SE)1 OR2 95% CI2
Model 1a (N males=3125, females=3458)
      Sympathetic-Caregiving Stress −.013(.040) 0.94 0.76, 1.15 .054(.040)** 1.31** 1.13, 1.53
      Work Stress −.002(.060) 0.89 0.65, 1.21 .023(.059) 1.13 0.90, 1.42
Model 2b (N males=3090, females=3439)
      Sympathetic-Caregiving Stress −.013(.041) 0.94 0.76, 1.15 .045(.039)** 1.29** 1.11, 1.51
      Work Stress −.011(.060) 0.82 0.60, 1.12 .019(.058) 1.11 0.88, 1.40
Model 3c (N males=3082, females=3421)
      Sympathetic-Caregiving Stress −.020(.040) 0.88 0.70, 1.10 .037(.037)* 1.35** 1.10, 1.65
      Work Stress −.013(.059) 0.82 0.59, 1.14 .017(.054) 1.13 0.84, 1.53
a

Controlled for demographic factors (age, ethnicity, income, education, marital status, employment status)

b

Controlled for demographic factors, medication use, hypertension, diabetes, and recent infection

c

Controlled for demographic factors, medication use, hypertension, diabetes, recent infection and bio-behavioral risk factors (smoking, alcohol, exercise, and BMI)

*

p< .05,

**

p< .01,

#

p<. 10