Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 31.
Published in final edited form as: J Behav Med. 2014 Aug 9;38(1):160–170. doi: 10.1007/s10865-014-9588-z

Associations of Structural and Functional Social Support with Diabetes Prevalence in U.S. Hispanics/Latinos: Results from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study

Linda C Gallo 1, Addie L Fortmann 2, Jessica L McCurley 2, Carmen R Isasi 3, Frank J Penedo 4, Martha L Daviglus 5, Scott C Roesch 1, Gregory A Talavera 6, Natalia Gouskova 7, Franklyn Gonzalez II 7, Neil Schneiderman 8, Mercedes R Carnethon 9
PMCID: PMC4349398  NIHMSID: NIHMS666448  PMID: 25107504

Abstract

Background

Little research has examined associations of social support with diabetes (or other physical health outcomes) in Hispanics, who are at elevated risk.

Purpose

We examined associations between social support and diabetes prevalence in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study.

Methods

Participants were 5181 adults, 18–74 years old, representing diverse Hispanic backgrounds, who underwent baseline exam with fasting blood draw, oral glucose tolerance test, medication review, sociodemographic assessment, and sociocultural exam with functional and structural social support measures.

Results

In adjusted analyses, one standard deviation higher structural and functional social support related to 16% and 15% lower odds, respectively, of having diabetes. Structural and functional support were related to both previously diagnosed diabetes (OR = .84 and .88, respectively) and newly recognized diabetes prevalence (OR = .84 and .83, respectively).

Conclusions

Higher functional and structural social support are associated with lower diabetes prevalence in Hispanics/Latinos.

Keywords: Diabetes, Hispanic, Latino, Prevalence, Risk Factor, Social Support

In the U.S., ethnic minorities including Hispanics1 are at higher risk for diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. The landmark Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Hispanics (HCHS/SOL), a prospective, population based cohort study of 16,415 Hispanic adults representing multiple ancestry backgrounds, recruited from four major U.S. metropolitan areas (2008 to 2011) reported an overall diabetes prevalence of 16.9 % (Daviglus et al., 2012; Schneiderman et al., In Press). Prevalence varied among the ancestry groups from 10.2% in South Americans to a high of 18.3% in Mexicans (Schneiderman, et al., In Press). Comparatively, in the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which, like the HCHS/SOL, included an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), prevalence of diabetes was 11.0% among non-Hispanic white participants and 20.1% among Hispanics of Mexican descent (Cowie et al., 2009). Other studies have shown that Hispanics with diabetes have poorer clinical control (Campbell et al., 2012) more complications, and higher mortality rates than their non-Hispanic counterparts (Harris, 2001; Lanting et al., 2005). Additional research is needed to understand the risk and protective factors related to diabetes in Hispanics, given their disproportionate vulnerability and poorer outcomes.

More than three decades of research demonstrates that social ties and support are important to optimal health and longevity (Barth et al., 2010; Fortmann & Gallo, 2013; Pinquart & Duberstein, 2010; Uchino, 2006; Umberson et al., 2010). Social support definitions vary widely, but a central conceptual distinction can be made between structural features of social networks, such as the number and diversity of social roles or frequency of social contact that one experiences (i.e., structural support), and the function these networks serve in providing support to an individual (i.e., functional support) (Cohen et al., 1985; Lakey & Cohen, 2000). Functional support is often conceptualized as the perception that support resources, such as material aid, emotional support, companionship or information, would be available from one’s social network if needed (i.e., “perceived functional social support”) (Lakey & Cohen, 2000). Other studies have examined retrospective self-reports of received functional social support (Brissette et al., 2000). However, these support transactions tend to be situational and often arise in the context of stress. Consistently, received support has been less reliably associated with health benefits than has perceived support (Uchino, 2009). Thus, the vast majority of the literature has focused on indicators of structural support and perceived functional social support in efforts to understand influences on health and well being (Uchino, 2009; Uchino et al., 2012).

Several reviews have concluded that low social support, defined variously, relates to higher risk of premature mortality from all causes (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality (Barth, et al., 2010; Mookadam & Arthur, 2004). A recent meta-analysis identified a more consistent association of perceived functional social support than of structural social support with CVD incidence and– especially–prognosis (Barth, et al., 2010). In contrast, only limited research has examined associations of social support with diabetes risk. A prospective study identified no relationship of functional or structural support with diabetes incidence over 10.5 years (Kumari et al., 2004). A case-referent study identified an association of low functional support with higher 8-year diabetes incidence in women, but not men, and observed no effect of structural support in either sex group (Norberg et al., 2007). Other studies have examined the association of social support at work with diabetes prevalence or incidence, however, a review and meta-analysis concluded that there is little evidence that low work social support relates to diabetes risk (Cosgrove et al., 2012).

Despite the limited direct evidence, a role of social support in the development of diabetes is biologically plausible through influences on neuroendocrine pathways associated with the development of visceral adiposity and insulin resistance (Buren & Eriksson, 2005; Uchino, 2006). Specifically, psychological stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) and the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM) system, triggering increases in circulating glucocorticoids, such as cortisol and corticosterone, and catecholamines, including epinephrine and norepinpherine, respectively (Smith & Vale, 2006). When chronically activated these responses can contribute to metabolic dysregulation, ultimately increasing risks for diabetes and other chronic diseases (McEwen, 2012). Cortisol promotes increased glucose production from liver cells, and inhibits insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells, thereby encouraging insulin resistance over time (Beaudry & Riddell, 2012). Cortisol also stimulates lipolysis, increasing plasma free fatty acid levels, which in turn inhibits insulin release and further promotes glucose intolerance and insulin resistance (Peckett et al., 2011). There is also evidence of increased cortisol activity in abdominal visceral fat tissue, suggesting a mechanism through which cortisol may contribute to visceral fat accumulation (Kershaw & Flier, 2004). SAM-induced elevations in circulating catecholamines promote the production of inflammatory cytokines and acute phase proteins, such as C-reactive protein, creating an inflammatory state that is closely linked with dyslipidemia and insulin resistance (Black, 2006; Kyrou & Tsigos, 2009). Central obesity further amplifies the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and thus, obesity, insulin resistance, and inflammation represent interrelated pathways in the pathophysiology of diabetes (Olefsky & Glass, 2010; Tsatsoulis et al., 2013).

As an important psychosocial resource that can protect against the physiological impact of stress by attenuating perceptions of threat and promoting more adaptive coping (Thoits, 2011), social support could reduce risk for diabetes and other chronic conditions. In addition, provision or perceptions of social support have been shown to have direct effects on SAM and HPA functioning that are in opposition to those potentiated by stress (Uchino, 2006). Higher social support may also protect against the development of diabetes indirectly, through an association with preventive health behaviors such as increased physical activity and healthier dietary patterns (Thoits, 2011; Umberson, et al., 2010). In the context of diabetes specifically, greater support has been associated with improved diabetes self-management behaviors (Gallant, 2003) and, concordantly, better glycemic control (Stopford et al., 2013). In part this mechanism could also involve a multi-step pathway from social support, to physiological alterations, to behavior. For example, high levels of cortisol have been shown to foster resistance to the effects of leptin, increasing appetite and stress-related eating, and thus enhancing risk for obesity and metabolic dysregulation (Adam & Epel, 2007). Emotional pathways have also been suggested as an indirect pathway from social support to physical health (Thoits, 2011; Umberson, et al., 2010), although a recent review found little empirical evidence for the hypothesis (Uchino, et al., 2012).

To date, few studies have examined relationships of social support with diabetes or any other objective health outcome in Hispanics, a diverse, large, and rapidly growing U.S ethnic group (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011). The limited research has generally focused on individuals of Mexican descent and low socioeconomic status (Bell et al., 2010; Fortmann et al., 2011), compromising generalizability to the larger U.S. Hispanic population that represents a range of backgrounds. This scarcity of research is notable, given the salience of social relationships in traditional Hispanic cultural contexts (Caplan, 2007). Hispanics tend to be more collectivistic, family oriented and focused on maintaining smooth and positive social interactions relative to non-Hispanic Whites (Gallo et al., 2009; Perez & Cruess, 2011), although within group variability in experiential and behavioral factors certainly exists (Elder et al., 2009). In fact, researchers have theorized that certain the health advantages experienced by Hispanics relative to non-Hispanic whites may be explained in part by cultural norms that prioritize warm, positive social interactions and strong family support systems (Jasso et al., 2004). Specifically, these protective social processes may represent one factor underlying epidemiological patterns suggesting that despite substantial social disadvantage (low socioeconomic status, poor healthcare access) (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014), and high rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes (Daviglus, et al., 2012; Kurian & Cardarelli, 2007), Hispanics appear to have lower CVD morbidity and mortality (Daviglus, et al., 2012; Go et al., 2013) and increased longevity relative to non-Hispanic whites (Arias, 2010). Often termed the “Hispanic Paradox”, these trends are supported by recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Cortes-Bergoderi et al., 2013; Ruiz et al., 2013), though contradictory findings have also been described (Teruya & Bazargan-Hejazi, 2013). In general, Hispanic health advantages are greater in foreign born than in U.S. born Hispanics, and they diminish with increasing time spent in the U.S. (Markides & Eschbach, 2011; Singh et al., 2013). In addition, some researchers have forecasted that health advantages of U.S. Hispanics will lessen in the coming decades as the population ages (Daviglus, et al., 2012) and as the full impact of childhood obesity (and disparities therein) are realized (Buttenheim et al., 2013). The HCHS/SOL (LaVange et al., 2010; Sorlie et al., 2010), and ancillary studies focused on sociocultural factors (Gallo et al., 2014) and health among the children of HCHS/SOL participants (Ayala et al., 2014; Isasi et al., 2014), will provide important insight into these epidemiological patterns and their changes over time in U.S. Hispanics.

Capitalizing on the unique HCHS/SOL cohort, the current study builds upon the limited research concerning the relationship of social support to diabetes and psychosocial correlates of Hispanic health, by examining associations of both functional and structural social support with diabetes prevalence in Hispanic adults of diverse ancestries. We hypothesized that higher levels of both structural and functional support would relate to lower diabetes prevalence. Given the cultural emphasis on maintaining strong positive relationships and social reciprocity in Hispanics, a high level of structural support could conversely impose a psychosocial or tangible burden that partially mitigates salubrious effects. For example, individuals with large networks may have many social responsibilities or obligations that tax their psychosocial resources (Pescosolido & Levy, 2002), or some relationships may be associated with both positive and negative features that on balance create stress (Uchino, 2013). Thus, we hypothesized that functional support would exhibit a stronger relationship with diabetes prevalence than would structural support when both types of support were examined conjointly. To help indirectly shed light on the temporal association between support and diabetes, additional analyses were conducted to separately examine associations of social support with diabetes cases diagnosed prior to the HCHS/SOL baseline exam versus cases that were newly recognized at baseline (i.e., so that participants were not aware of or actively managing their condition).

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The HCHS/SOL is a prospective epidemiologic cohort study of chronic disease prevalence, incidence, and risk and protective factors in Hispanic individuals of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Central and South American, and other Hispanic ancestry, recruited from four field centers (the Bronx, NY, Chicago, IL, Miami, FL, and San Diego, CA). Details concerning the study sample (LaVange, et al., 2010) and approach (Sorlie, et al., 2010) have been reported previously. Participants who self-identified as Hispanic and were 18–74 years old at screening were recruited using a two-stage area household probability sampling approach, with oversampling of the 45–74 year age group. Participants attended a baseline exam with anthropometric assessment, fasting blood draw, 2-hour OGTT, self-report sociodemographic and health assessments, and medication review. The current study used demographic data, body mass index (BMI), and diabetes diagnostic information obtained during the HCHS/SOL baseline exam.

Methods for the Sociocultural Ancillary Study have been presented elsewhere (Gallo, et al., 2014). The study was initiated to more thoroughly examine sociocultural correlates of health among HCHS/SOL participants. All participants who were able and willing to attend a separate visit within 9 months of their HCHS/SOL baseline exam were eligible; of 7,321 individuals whom recruiters attempted to reach, 5,313 (N=72.6%) participated. Sociocultural Ancillary Study participants are largely representative of the HCHS/SOL cohort, with the exception of lower participation among some higher socioeconomic strata (Gallo, et al., 2014). Measures of functional and structural social support were administered in the sociocultural exam. Participants with missing data on social support measures (N=126) or diabetes status (N=6) were excluded from the current study; thus, analyses are based on N=5,181 men and women. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from all study sites for all HCHS/SOL and HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study procedures and materials.

Measures

Social Support

The 12-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12) (Cohen, et al., 1985) was used to assess functional (i.e., perceived) social support. Scores range from 0 to 36 with higher scores reflecting greater perceived support. Analyses with this measure in the HCHS/SOL sociocultural cohort showed evidence of internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs > .80 for both language and all Hispanic background groups), support for the one factor structure, evidence of factorial invariance across language and background groups, and construct validity in the form of theoretically consistent patterns of associations with other constructs (Merz et al., 2014). The Social Network Index (Cohen et al., 1997) was used to assess structural support. This 25-item scale provides a count (range 0–12) of the number of high contact (at least once each two weeks) social roles (e.g., friend, co-worker) the respondent has. Internal consistency and other psychometric data are not reported for this scale given the count format and the fact that it is not intended to capture underlying latent construct(s). However, the range of roles surveyed is generally applicable across population groups.

Diabetes Prevalence

Participants who (a) self-reported receiving a diagnosis of diabetes by a doctor, and/or (b) were taking medication for glucose regulation, and/or (c) met current criteria for diabetes according to physiological markers (fasting plasma glucose >=126 mg/dL, 2-h plasma glucose >200 mg/dl during OGTT, HbA1c >=6.5%) (American Diabetes Association, 2013a) were coded as having diabetes. For secondary analyses, participants who met criteria (a) or (b) were categorized as having previously diagnosed diabetes. Those who met criterion (c) [but not (a) or (b)] were classified as having newly recognized diabetes based on physiological data, consistent with current diagnostic criteria (American Diabetes Association, 2013a) and with a prior study in the HCHS/SOL cohort (Schneiderman, et al., In Press). Participants who were missing medication, physiological, or diabetes self-report data (N=155) were excluded from these analyses.

Covariates

Sociodemographic covariates included age (in years), sex, education [<high school (HS) diploma/general education degree (GED), HS diploma/GED only, > HS diploma/GED], income (10 categories, ranging from < $10,000 to > $100,000), and Hispanic background (Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Central American, South American, other or more than one). Language of interview (Spanish or English) and immigration status (immigrated < 10 years ago, immigrated ≥ 10 years ago, born in US mainland) were used as proxy indicators of acculturation, and health insurance status (any or none) was used to represent healthcare access. Marital status was examined for descriptive purposes but was not used as a covariate since it forms part of the structural support measure. BMI was indicated by weight in kg/height in m2.

Statistical Analyses

All analyses account for design effects and sample weights (LaVange, et al., 2010). Sample weights are adjusted for non-response, calibrated to the 2010 U.S. Census populations (for the target communities) according to age, sex and Hispanic background, and normalized to the HCHS/SOL cohort sample size. Descriptive statistics were calculated in IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0 (IBM, Inc., Armonk, NY) using complex survey procedures. The maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimation procedure in MPLUS (Muthén & Muthén, 2006) was used to estimate model parameters for all remaining analyses. This procedure adjusts regression parameters and standard errors for missing data. Structural and functional support indicators were first examined as predictors in separate, unadjusted logistic regression models, and then in adjusted models that controlled for sociodemographic covariates including age, sex, immigration, language, insurance, education, income, and Hispanic background.2 Adjusted models were repeated with structural and functional support indicators entered conjointly to determine their relative effects in relation to diabetes prevalence. Additional analyses, conducted according to the same steps, used multinomial logistic regression to examine associations of social support variables with odds of previously and newly diagnosed diabetes in separate models; no diabetes was used as the referent group in these analyses. Social support predictors were standardized (M = 0, SD = 1) prior to analysis. For ease of interpretation, the inverse of odds ratios < 1.0 are reported below.

Previous research suggests that the effects of low social support may be amplified in older adults (Tomaka et al., 2006), women (Coyne et al., 2001), and immigrants or less acculturated individuals (Viruell-Fuentes & Schulz, 2009). The health protective effects of social support may also be greater among individuals with lower socioeconomic status (Gorman & Sivaganesan, 2007; Schollgen et al., 2011). Thus, sensitivity analyses that included multiplicative interaction terms were conducted to examine the consistency of the adjusted associations between social support and overall diabetes prevalence across age, sex, immigration, language, income, and education groups. An alpha level of .01 was used to reduce type 1 error risk in these analyses.

Results

The association between structural and functional support measures was positive and moderate in magnitude, r = 0.28, p <.001. As shown in Table 1, 38.12% of the sample was male and 61.09% was aged 45 years or older. Most participants had a household income of < $30,000 (65.84%), immigrated to the U.S. more than 10 years ago (58.91%), and completed their interview in Spanish (80.70%). Diabetes prevalence was 21.35% (95% CI 20.23–22.46) in the sample (weighted prevalence, 16.77%; 95% CI 15.37–18.27). On average, participants reported having 5.59 “high-contact” social roles and had an average ISEL-12 score of 25.85.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for sample demographic characteristics, diabetes prevalence, and social support variables: HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study (N=5181)

Characteristic N Unweighted Percent (%) Weighted Percent (%)a
Male sex 1975 38.12 45.46
Age group
 18–44 2016 38.91 57.15
 45+ 3165 61.09 42.85
Hispanic Background
 Central American 538 10.38 7.56
 Cuban 741 14.30 19.96
 Dominican 525 10.13 11.83
 Mexican 2041 39.39 36.83
 Puerto Rican 857 16.54 15.63
 South American 340 6.56 4.81
 More than one/Other 136 2.62 3.37
Household yearly income < $30K 3411 65.84 69.73
Education < HS diploma or GED 1834 35.40 32.40
Immigration Status
 Born in the US Mainland 903 17.43 22.15
 Immigrated < 10 years ago 1216 23.47 27.12
 Immigrated ≥ 10 years ago 3052 58.91 50.69
Spanish Language Interview 4181 80.70 75.20
Has Health Insurance 2605 50.28 52.20
Diabetes Prevalence 1106 21.35 16.77
Social Support Indicators (Unweighted Data) M SD
 Structural Supportb 5.59 1.85
 Functional Supportc 25.85 6.65
Open in a new tab
a

Differences in weighted versus unweighted percents are due to targeted sampling scheme

b

Number of high contact social roles as measured by the Social Network Index (possible range 0–12)

c

Overall perceived social support as measured by the ISEL-12 (possible range 0–36)

HS = High School; GED = General Education Development Test

Overall Diabetes Prevalence

Results of analyses testing primary study hypotheses are presented in Table 2. In adjusted models, a one SD higher structural or functional support score was related to 16% (i.e., 1/0.86) and 15% (i.e., 1/0.87) lower odds, respectively, of having diabetes. Tests of interaction effects showed that these associations were consistent across demographic groups (all p-values > .01). When modeled simultaneously, associations of both types of social support with diabetes prevalence remained statistically significant; one SD higher structural or functional support was related to 12% and 11% lower odds, respectively, of having diabetes (p-values < .05), in the adjusted model.

Table 2.

Results of logistic and multinomial regression analyses examining associations between structural and functional social support and diabetes prevalence: HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study

Logistic Regression Analyses (N = 5181) Multinomial Regression Analyses (N = 5026)
Any diabetes vs. No diabetes OR [95% CI] Previously diagnosed vs. No diabetes, OR [95% CI] Newly diagnosed vs. No diabetes, OR [95% CI]
Demographic covariates (coefficients are from model excluding support variables)
 Agea 1.07 [1.06, 1.08] 1.08 [1.06, 1.09] 1.06 [1.05, 1.07]
 Genderb 0.97 [0.79, 1.20] 1.02 [0.79, 1.31] 0.88 [0.66, 1.17]
 Immigrated 10+ years agob 0.80 [0.56, 1.16] 0.78 [0.50, 1.22] 0.84 [0.51, 1.37]
 Immigrated <10 years agob 0.54 [0.33, 0.87] 0.43 [0.25, 0.73] 0.71 [0.38, 1.34]
 Interview Languageb 0.90 [0.60, 1.34] 0.87 [0.55, 1.37] 0.73 [0.44, 1.21]
 Incomea 0.90 [0.86, 0.95] 0.88 [0.83, 0.93] 0.93 [0.86, 1.01]
 Educationa 0.90 [0.79, 1.02] 0.88 [0.76, 1.03] 0.91 [0.75, 1.09]
 Health Insuranceb 1.29 [1.03, 1.61] 1.67 [1.26, 2.21] 0.81 [0.58, 1.13]
 Hispanic Backgroundb
  Central American 0.89 [0.62, 1.28] 1.07 [0.68, 1.67] 0.69 [0.42, 1.15]
  Cuban 0.74 [0.53, 1.01] 0.83 [0.56, 1.23] 0.60 [0.38, 0.97]
  Dominican 0.75 [0.53, 1.06] 0.76 [0.49, 1.16] 0.75 [0.44, 1.27]
  Puerto Rican 0.95 [0.68, 1.32] 1.09 [0.75, 1.57] 0.77 [0.45, 1.31]
  South American 0.65 [0.42, 1.00] 0.65 [0.38, 1.10] 0.73 [0.40, 1.33]
  More than one/Other 0.45 [0.23, 0.90] 0.51 [0.23, 1.15] 0.33 [0.12, 0.87]
Structural Support
  Unadjusted Model 0.72 [0.65, 0.80] 0.68 [0.61, 0.76] 0.78 [0.68, 0.89]
  Adjusted Model 0.86 [0.77, 0.96] 0.84 [0.73, 0.96] 0.84 [0.72, 0.98]
Functional Support
  Unadjusted Model 0.78 [0.71, 0.86] 0.78 [0.70, 0.87] 0.78 [0.66, 0.91]
  Adjusted Model 0.87 [0.78, 0.96] 0.88 [0.79, 0.98] 0.83 [0.71, 0.99]
Conjoint Models (Adjusted Models Only)
  Structural Supportc 0.89 [0.79, 0.99] 0.86 [0.75, 0.99] 0.88 [0.75, 1.03]
  Functional Supportd 0.90 [0.81, 0.99] 0.92 [0.82, 1.03] 0.87 [0.72, 1.03]
Open in a new tab
a

Continuous (Age) or ordinal (Education, 3 categories, <HS diploma/GED, HS diploma/GED only, >HS diploma/GED; Income, 10 categories, < $10,000 to > $100,000) effects tested.

b

Categorical effects tested [Gender, Male = 0; Immigration, Born in US Mainland = 0 (referent group); Interview Language, Spanish =0; Insurance, No Insurance = 0; Ethnic Background, Mexican = 0 (referent group)].

c

Number of high contact social roles as measured by the Social Network Index (possible range 0–12)

d

Overall perceived social support as measured by the ISEL-12 (possible range 0–36)

Previously Diagnosed and Newly Diagnosed Diabetes

One SD higher structural or functional support was related to 19% and 14% lower odds, respectively, of having previously diagnosed (versus no) diabetes, and 19% and 20% lower odds, respectively, of having newly diagnosed (versus no) diabetes (all p-values < .05). (See Table 2). When effects of both types of support were conjointly tested in adjusted models, higher structural support was associated with 16% lower odds of previously diagnosed diabetes (p < .05), whereas functional support was not significantly related to this outcome. Neither social support variable was found to be associated with odds of having newly diagnosed diabetes in adjusted, conjoint models.

Discussion

The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that higher social support is related to lower odds of diabetes prevalence among Hispanics of diverse backgrounds, and is among the first to examine the association of social support with diabetes prevalence or incidence in any population. The study also adds to the very limited research that has examined psychosocial factors in relation to objectively assessed physical health outcomes in Hispanics. This is an important research emphasis, given the growth of the Hispanic population. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Hispanics comprised 16% of the US population and accounted for 56% of the population growth between 2000–2010 (Ennis et al., 2011). In addition, protective social factors associated with the traditional Hispanic culture represent one potential explanation for the so called “Hispanic Paradox”, yet to date, very little is known the psychosocial correlates of health in the diverse U.S. Hispanic population. The HCHS/SOL provides a unique opportunity to examine the psychosocial correlates of health in a cohort that includes representation of several background groups, and a range of socioeconomic and acculturation levels (Gallo, et al., 2014).

The results showed that that higher levels of structural and functional social support were associated with lower odds of diabetes prevalence. Effects were small in magnitude, but were statistically significant after adjusting for a range of sociodemographic covariates, and were consistent across demographic groups defined by age, sex, immigration, language, income, education, and Hispanic ancestry. Although prior research has identified differential health implications of functional versus structural support (Barth, et al., 2010), including a study of social support and diabetes risk (Norberg, et al., 2007), both types of support were independently related to diabetes prevalence in this cohort. Structural social support may be important because it indicates regular social contact and promotes role diversity, thus contributing to a sense of meaning in life that enhances health and well-being, and because it fosters accessible functional support (Uchino, 2004). In turn, functional support provides access to specific resources (or perceptions that they are available if needed), which can attenuate stress appraisals and enhance positive coping with stressors ranging in severity from minor daily hassles to major life events (Uchino, 2004). Ultimately, direct and indirect behavioral and physiological pathways are believed to underlie the associations of functional and structural social with physical health outcomes, as detailed above.

Analyses separately examining associations of functional and structural social support with previously diagnosed and newly recognized diabetes cases provide additional information. Specifically, the associations of structural support with previously diagnosed and newly recognized diabetes (versus no diabetes) were equivalent in strength. Associations of functional support with each outcome were also similar in magnitude, though the association with previously diagnosed diabetes was slightly stronger. In analyses that simultaneously modeled effects of functional and structural support in relation to newly or previously diagnosed versus no diabetes, only the association of structural support with previously diagnosed diabetes remained statistically significant. This may in part reflect the shared influences of these constructs as discussed above, but could also reflect the lower statistical power inherent to these conjoint analyses. Although the cross-sectional design precludes conclusions regarding causality or directionality, the relationship of social support to the prevalence of diabetes that was newly recognized at the baseline exam provides indirect, albeit preliminary evidence for an etiological role of social support in the diabetes pathophysiological process. For example, it is possible that individuals with diabetes may withdraw from certain social roles (e.g., employee, volunteer) due to illness or disability, or, their friends and family may become less willing to provide support and assistance over time, as support sources become taxed or exhausted. Indeed, there is evidence that stressful circumstances, such as those associated with a health crisis, can erode social support (Bolger et al., 1996; Uchino, 2009). It is probable that individuals who were unaware of their diabetes diagnosis prior to the HCHS/SOL baseline exam had less advanced disease, relative to those who had sought care. In addition, individuals who were not aware they had diabetes would be less likely to rely on their support networks for assistance in coping with their health and medical care, at least as related to diabetes specifically. The fact that effects of support emerged in relation to newly recognized diabetes provides the impetus for future research that explores the etiological role of social support in diabetes.

In addition to the cross-sectional design, several limitations of the current study should be noted. The social support and diabetes variables were ascertained at different points in time. The Sociocultural Ancillary Study was initiated during the second wave of HCHS/SOL recruitment, and a generous window (9 months) was adopted between the baseline and sociocultural exam to ensure a more inclusive approach. Notably, 88.3% of participants completed the sociocultural assessment within 6 months and 72.6% within 4 months of their baseline exam (Gallo, et al., 2014). The clinical exam with OGTT, HbA1c, and fasting glucose represents a rigorous approach for detecting diabetes in a large cohort study such as the HCHS/SOL. However, a small number of cases were based on self-reported information alone (for prevalence analyses only) and this may have introduced error into the categorization scheme. In addition, we were unable to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. However, only 2.6% of participants aged 18–29 in the HCHS/SOL cohort had diabetes (Schneiderman, et al., In Press) and at the population level, 90–95% of diabetes cases are type 2 rather than type 1 (American Diabetes Association, 2013a). Thus it is unlikely that this imprecision significantly affected our results.

Limitations not withstanding, the current findings add to the limited evidence suggesting that social support may relate to the occurrence of diabetes. In addition, they build upon the small body of research suggesting the protective health implications of social support in US Hispanics (Bell, et al., 2010; Fortmann, et al., 2011), in a large cohort representing multiple backgrounds, varied levels of socioeconomic status and acculturation, and several geographic locations with large metropolitan Hispanic populations. Given the marked increases in diabetes rates among Hispanics (Cowie, et al., 2009; Schneiderman et al., 2014), and the tremendous economic burden this condition exacts [e.g., total costs of $245 billion in 2012 (American Diabetes Association, 2013b)], it is important to identify modifiable risk and protective factors to inform prevention efforts in this population. Health promotion or disease management interventions with a social support emphasis have varied widely and many studies of their effectiveness have important methodological limitations, or have produced mixed findings (Hogan et al., 2002). Nonetheless, a systematic review of support interventions tested across emotional and physical health contexts found that 73/92 (83%) randomized controlled trials identified at least some benefits of support promoting interventions (Hogan et al., 2002), suggesting that efforts to modify support may be a useful strategy. In addition, specific social support enhancing intervention approaches (social support groups, group medical visits) appear to be effective in promoting better self-management and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes (van Dam et al., 2005), and could also be useful in a prevention context. To justify such efforts, further research based on the HCHS/SOL and other cohorts is needed to examine the association of social support with diabetes incidence and to elucidate the specific direct and indirect mechanisms that underlie this association.

Acknowledgments

The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos was carried out as a collaborative study supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to the University of North Carolina (N01-HC65233), University of Miami (N01-HC65234), Albert Einstein College of Medicine (N01-HC65235), Northwestern University (N01-HC65236), and San Diego State University (N01-HC65237). The following Institutes/Centers/Offices contribute to the HCHS/SOL through a transfer of funds to the NHLBI: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Office of Dietary Supplements. The HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study was supported by grant 1 RC2 HL101649 from the NIH/NHLBI (Gallo/Penedo PIs). The authors thank the staff and participants of HCHS/SOL and the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study for their important contributions.

Footnotes

1

We use “Hispanic” to encompass the terms Hispanic, Latino, and others that may be favored by certain ethnic or geographic groups, acknowledging that there are differences of opinion regarding the meaning and relevance of these terms.

2

Additional control for BMI did not substantively alter results. In addition, BMI is viewed as a pathway through which support could relate to diabetes, rather than a confounding factor; thus, BMI was excluded from models.

Conflict of Interest Statement: Authors Gallo, Fortmann, McCurley, Isasi, Penedo, Daviglus, Roesch, Talavera, Gouskova, Gonzalez, Schneiderman, Carnethon, The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Informed Consent Statement: All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Adam TC, Epel ES. Stress, eating and the reward system. Physiology & Behavior. 2007;91(4):449–458. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arias E, E K, Schauman WS, Backlund EL, Sorlie PD. The Hispanic mortality advantage and ethnic misclassification on US death certificates. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(S1):S171–S177. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.135863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2013a;36(Supplement 1):S67–S74. doi: 10.2337/dc13-S067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of ciabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013b;36(4):1033–1046. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ayala GX, Carnethon M, Arredondo E, Delamater AM, Perreira K, Van Horn L, et al. Theoretical foundations of the Study of Latino (SOL) Youth: Implications for obesity and cardiometabolic risk. Annals of Epidemiology. 2014;24(1):36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.10.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth J, Schneider S, Von Känel R. Lack of social support in the etiology and the prognosis of coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2010;72(3):229–238. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d01611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaudry JL, Riddell MC. Effects of glucocorticoids and exercise on pancreatic β-cell function and diabetes development. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. 2012;28(7):560–573. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell CN, Thorpe RJ, Jr, Laveist TA. Race/Ethnicity and hypertension: the role of social support. American Journal of Hypertension. 2010;23(5):534–540. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2010.28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Black PH. The inflammatory consequences of psychologic stress: relationship to insulin resistance, obesity, atherosclerosis and diabetes mellitus, type II. Medical Hypotheses. 2006;67(4):879–891. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolger N, Foster M, Vinokur AD, Ng R. Close relationships and adjustments to a life crisis: The case of breast cancer. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1996;70(2):283–294. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brissette I, Cohen S, Seeman TE. Measuring social integration and social networks. In: Cohen S, Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH, editors. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 53–85. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buren J, Eriksson JW. Is insulin resistance caused by defects in insulin’s target cells or by a stressed mind? Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. 2005;21(6):487–494. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Buttenheim AM, Pebley AR, Hsih K, Chung CY, Goldman N. The shape of things to come? Obesity prevalence among foreign-born vs. US-born Mexican youth in California. Social Science & Medicine. 2013;78:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell J, Walker R, Smalls B, Egede L. Glucose control in diabetes: the impact of racial differences on monitoring and outcomes. Endocrine. 2012;42(3):471–82. doi: 10.1007/s12020-012-9744-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Caplan S. Latinos, acculturation, and acculturative stress: A dimensional concept analysis. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice. 2007;8(2):93–106. doi: 10.1177/1527154407301751.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM., Jr Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA. 1997;277(24):1940–1944. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540480040036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, Hoberman HM. Measuring the functional components of social support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, editors. Social support: Theory, research, and applications. The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff; 1985. pp. 73–94. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cortes-Bergoderi M, Goel K, Murad MH, Allison T, Somers VK, Erwin PJ, et al. Cardiovascular mortality in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanic whites: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Hispanic paradox. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2013;24(8):791–799. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cosgrove MP, Sargeant LA, Caleyachetty R, Griffin SJ. Work-related stress and Type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine. 2012;62(3):167–173. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqs002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cowie CC, Rust KF, Ford ES, Eberhardt MS, Byrd-Holt DD, Li C, et al. Full accounting of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the U.S. population in 1988–1994 and 2005–2006. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(2):287–294. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Coyne JC, Rohrbaugh MJ, Shoham V, Sonnega JS, Nicklas JM, Cranford JA. Prognostic importance of marital quality for survival of congestive heart failure. American Journal of Cardiology. 2001;88(5):526–529. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(01)01731-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Daviglus ML, Talavera GA, Aviles-Santa ML, Allison M, Cai J, Criqui MH, et al. Prevalence of major cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases among Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse backgrounds in the United States. JAMA. 2012;308(17):1775–1784. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.14517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Elder JP, Ayala GX, Parra-Medina D, Talavera GA. Health communication in the Latino community: issues and approaches. Annual Revivew of Public Health. 2009;30:227–251. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ennis SR, Rios-Vargas M, Albert N. The Hispanic Population: 2010 Census Briefs 2011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fortmann AL, Gallo LC. Social support and nocturnal bood pressure dipping: A systematic review. American Journal of Hypertension. 2013;26(3):302–310. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hps041f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fortmann AL, Gallo LC, Philis-Tsimikas A. Glycemic control among Latinos with type 2 diabetes: the role of social-environmental support resources. Health Psychology. 2011;30(3):251–258. doi: 10.1037/a0022850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gallant MP. The Influence of Social Support on Chronic Illness Self-Management: A Review and Directions for Research. Health Education & Behavior. 2003;30(2):170–195. doi: 10.1177/1090198102251030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gallo LC, Penedo FJ, Carnethon M, Isasi C, Sotrez-Alvarez D, Malcarne VL, et al. The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study: Sample, design, and procedures. Ethnicity and Disease. 2014;24(1):77–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gallo LC, Penedo FJ, Espinosa De Los Monteros K, Arguelles W. Resiliency in the face of disadvantage: Do Hispanic cultural characteristics protect health outcomes? Journal of Personality. 2009;77(6):1707–1746. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00598.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2014 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Circulation. 2013 doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000441139.02102.80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gorman BK, Sivaganesan A. The role of social support and integration for understanding socioeconomic disparities in self-rated health and hypertension. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;65(5):958–975. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Harris MI. Racial and ethnic differences in health care access and health outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(3):454–459. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.3.454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B. Social support interventions: Do they work? Clinical Psychology Review. 2002;22(3):383–442. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00102-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine. 2010;7(7):e1000316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Isasi CR, Carnethon MR, Ayala GX, Arredondo E, Bangdiwala SI, Daviglus ML, et al. The Hispanic Community Children’s Health Study/Study of Latino Youth (SOL Youth): design, objectives, and procedures. Annals of Epidemiology. 2014;24(1):29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jasso G, Massey DS, Rosenzweig MR, Smith JP. Immigrant Health-Selectivity and Acculturation. In: Norman, Rodolfo, Barney, editors. Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2004. pp. 227–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kershaw EF, Flier JS. Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2004;89(6):2548–2556. doi: 10.1210/jc.2004-0395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kumari M, Head J, Marmot M. Prospective Study of Social and Other Risk Factors for Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in the Whitehall II Study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004;164(17):1873–1880. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.17.1873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kurian AK, Cardarelli KM. Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review. Ethnicty and Disease. 2007;17(1):143–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kyrou I, Tsigos C. Stress hormones: physiological stress and regulation of metabolism. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. 2009;9(6):787–793. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2009.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lakey B, Cohen S. Social support theory and measurement. In: Cohen, Underwood, Gottlieb, editors. Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 29–52. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lanting LC, Joung IM, Mackenbach JP, Lamberts SW, Bootsma AH. Ethnic differences in mortality, end-stage complications, and quality of care among diabetic patients: a review. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2280–2288. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.9.2280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lavange LM, Kalsbeek WD, Sorlie PD, Avilès-Santa LM, Kaplan RC, Barnhart J, et al. Sample Design and Cohort Selection in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Annals of Epidemiology. 2010;20(8):642–649. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Markides KS, Eschbach K. Hispanic Paradox in Adult Mortality in the United States. In: Rogers, Crimmins, editors. International Handbook of Adult Mortality. Vol. 2. Springer; Netherlands: 2011. pp. 227–240. 240. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mcewen BS. Brain on stress: how the social environment gets under the skin. Proceedings of the National Acadademy of Science. 2012;109(Suppl 2):17180–17185. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121254109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Merz EL, Roesch SC, Malcarne VL, Penedo FJ, Llabre MM, Weitzman OB, et al. Validation of Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-12 (ISEL-12) scores among English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Psychological Assessment. 2014;26(2):384–394. doi: 10.1037/a0035248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mookadam F, Arthur HM. Social support and its relationship to morbidity and mortality after acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004;164(14):1514–1518. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.14.1514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  49. Norberg M, Stenlund H, Lindahl B, Andersson C, Eriksson JW, Weinehall L. Work stress and low emotional support is associated with increased risk of future type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2007;76(3):368–377. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2006.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Olefsky JM, Glass CK. Macrophages, Inflammation, and Insulin Resistance. Annual Review of Physiology. 2010;72(1):219–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Peckett AJ, Wright DC, Riddell MC. The effects of glucocorticoids on adipose tissue lipid metabolism. Metabolism. 2011;60(11):1500–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2011.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Perez GK, Cruess D. The impact of familism on physical and mental health among Hispanics in the United States. Health Psychology Review. 2011:1–33. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.569936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pescosolido BA, Levy JA. The role of social networks in health, illness, disease and healing: The accepting present, the forgotten past, and the dangerous potential for a complacent future. In: Levy, Pescosolido, editors. Social Networks and Health (Advances in Medical Sociology, Volume 8) United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2002. pp. 3–25. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pew Hispanic Center. Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos. Washington, D.C: Pew Hispanic Center; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pew Hispanic Center. Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2012. Washington, D.C: Pew Hispanic Center; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: A meta-analysis. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2010;75(2):122–137. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.06.003. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.06.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ruiz JM, Steffen P, Smith TB. Hispanic mortality paradox: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the longitudinal literature. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):e52–60. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2012.301103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Schneiderman N, Llabre M, Cowie C, Barnhart J, Carnethon M, Gallo LC, et al. Prevalence of Diabetes among Hispanics/Latinos from Diverse Backgrounds: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Diabetes Care. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2939. (In Press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Schollgen I, Huxhold O, Schuz B, Tesch-Romer C. Resources for health: differential effects of optimistic self-beliefs and social support according to socioeconomic status. Health Psychology. 2011;30(3):326–335. doi: 10.1037/a0022514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Singh GK, Rodriguez-Lainz A, Kogan MD. Immigrant health inequalities in the United States: use of eight major national data systems. Scientific World Journal, 2013. 2013;512313 doi: 10.1155/2013/512313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Smith SM, Vale WW. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 2006;8(4):383–395. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.4/ssmith. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sorlie PD, Avilès-Santa LM, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kaplan RC, Daviglus ML, Giachello AL, et al. Design and Implementation of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Annals of Epidemiology. 2010;20(8):629–641. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.03.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Stopford R, Winkley K, Ismail K. Social support and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of observational studies. Patient Education and Counseling. 2013;93(3):549–558. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Teruya SA, Bazargan-Hejazi S. The immigrant and Hispanic paradoxes: A systematic review of their predictions and effects. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2013;35(4):486–509. doi: 10.1177/0739986313499004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2011;52(2):145–161. doi: 10.1177/0022146510395592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Tomaka J, Thompson S, Palacios R. The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health. 2006;18(3):359–384. doi: 10.1177/0898264305280993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Tsatsoulis A, Mantzaris MD, Bellou S, Andrikoula M. Insulin resistance: An adaptive mechanism becomes maladaptive in the current environment — An evolutionary perspective. Metabolism. 2013;62(5):622–633. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2012.11.004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2012.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Uchino BN. Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  69. Uchino BN. Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2006;29(4):377–387. doi: 10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Uchino BN. Understanding the Links Between Social Support and Physical Health: A Life-Span Perspective With Emphasis on the Separability of Perceived and Received Support. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;4(3):236–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Uchino BN. Understanding the links between social ties and health: On building stronger bridges with relationship science. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2013;30(2):155–162. doi: 10.1177/0265407512458659. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Uchino BN, Bowen K, Carlisle M, Birmingham W. Psychological pathways linking social support to health outcomes: A visit with the “ghosts” of research past, present, and future. Social Science & Medicine. 2012;74(7):949–957. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.023. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Umberson D, Crosnoe R, Reczek C. Social relationships and health behavior across the life course. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010;36(1):139–157. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Van Dam HA, Van Der Horst FG, Knoops L, Ryckman RM, Crebolder HFJM, Van Den Borne BHW. Social support in diabetes: a systematic review of controlled intervention studies. Patient Education and Counseling. 2005;59(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.11.001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Viruell-Fuentes EA, Schulz AJ. Toward a dynamic conceptualization of social ties and context: Implications for understanding immigrant and Latino health. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(12):2167–2175. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2008.158956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES