By G. Kerth. Morris Brown College.
This increased cortisol production exhausts the stress mechanism discount astelin 10 ml, leading to fatigue and depression buy discount astelin 10 ml on line. As a result 10 ml astelin with visa, wounds heal more slowly when we are under stress buy 10 ml astelin mastercard, and we are more likely [8] to get cancer (Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002; Wells, 2006). Although heart disease is caused in part by genetic factors, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cigarette smoking, it [9] is also caused by stress (Krantz & McCeney, 2002). The combination of increased blood flow and arterial constriction leads to increased blood pressure (hypertension), which can damage the heart muscle, leading to heart attack and death. Although these are probably not on your top-10 list of most common stressors, the stress that you experience in your [11] everyday life can also be taxing. Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe (1967) developed a measure of some everyday life events that might lead to stress, and you can assess your own likely stress level by completing the measure in Table 10. You might want to pay particular attention to this score, because it can predict the likelihood that [12] you will get sick. Rahe and colleagues (1970) asked 2,500 members of the military to complete the rating scale and then assessed the health records of the soldiers over the following 6 months. The results were clear: The higher the scale score, the more likely the soldier was to end up in the hospital. Our everyday interactions with the environment that are essentially negative, known asdaily hassles, can also create stress as well as poorer health [13] outcomes (Hutchinson & Williams, 2007). Events that may seem rather trivial altogether, such as misplacing our keys, having to reboot our computer because it has frozen, being late for an assignment, or getting cut off by another car in rush-hour traffic, can produce stress [14] [15] (Fiksenbaum, Greenglass, & Eaton, 2006). Glaser (1985) found that medical students who were tested during, rather than several weeks before, their school examination periods showed lower immune system functioning. Other research has found that even more minor stressors, Attributed to Charles Stangor Saylor. Responses to Stress Not all people experience and respond to stress in the same way, and these differences can be [17] important. Rosenman (1974) were among the first to study the link between stress and heart disease. In their research they noticed that even though the partners in married couples often had similar lifestyles, diet, and exercise patterns, the husbands nevertheless generally had more heart disease than did the wives. As they tried to explain the difference, they focused on the personality characteristics of the partners, finding that the husbands were more likely than the wives to respond to stressors with negative emotions and hostility. Recent research has shown that the strongest predictor of a physiological stress response from daily hassles is the amount of negative emotion that they evoke. People who experience strong negative emotions as a result of everyday hassles, and who respond to stress with hostility experience more negative health outcomes than do those who react in a less negative way [18] (McIntyre, Korn, & Matsuo, 2008; Suls & Bunde, 2005). Williams and his colleagues [19] (2001) found that people who scored high on measures of anger were three times more likely to suffer from heart attacks in comparison to those who scored lower on anger. On average, men are more likely than are women to respond to stress by activating the fight-or- flight response, which is an emotional and behavioral reaction to stress that increases the readiness for action. The arousal that men experience when they are stressed leads them to either go on the attack, in an aggressive or revenging way, or else retreat as quickly as they can to safety from the stressor. The fight-or-flight response allows men to control the source of the stress if they think they can do so, or if that is not possible, it allows them to save face by leaving the situation. Rather, they [20] are more likely to take a tend-and-befriend response (Taylor et al. The tend-and- befriend response is a behavioral reaction to stress that involves activities designed to create social networks that provide protection from threats. This approach is also self-protective because it allows the individual to talk to others about her concerns, as well as to exchange resources, such as child care. The tend-and-befriend response is triggered in women by the release of the hormone ocytocin, which promotes affiliation. This may help explain why women, on average, have less heart disease and live longer than men.
Results The results were analysed to assess the role of the different social psychological models in predicting screening behaviour for both breast and cervical cancer generic astelin 10 ml line. Originally purchase astelin 10 ml amex, individual correlations were evaluated between the dependent variables (breast cancer and cervical cancer screening behaviour) and the subjects’ demographic characteristics buy cheap astelin 10 ml line, their health beliefs generic 10 ml astelin amex, health locus of control and their emotional control. Breast self-examination The results showed that breast self-examination was more frequent among those who attended for smear tests; negatively related to age and social class, a high belief in the costs of attendance for treatment, a high belief in the role of powerful others; and positively related to marital status, benefits of treatment, health motivation, knowledge of breast and cervical cancer. Cervical screening behaviour The results indicated that attending for cervical smears was positively related to religion, marital status, perceived benefits of treatment, health motivation, knowledge of breast and cervical cancer; and negatively associated with social class, perceived barriers and costs and a belief in the role of chance. The results were then analysed to assess the overall best predictors of screening behaviour using multiple-regression analysis. The results suggest that the best predictor of breast self-examination was confidence in carrying out the examination (self-efficacy) and the best predictor of attending for cervical smears was having a lower fear of the consequences of the investigation (barriers). Conclusion The results from this study provide some support for the individual components of the health belief model and health locus of control in predicting screening behaviour for both cervical and breast cancer. However, the results provide no support for a role of emotional control in screening behaviour. The authors conclude that health promotion aimed at increasing breast self-examination ‘must consider how to improve women’s confidence in how to practise it’ and education aimed at promoting attendance for cervical smears should ‘reduce the anxiety felt among many women about the possible consequences of the investigation’. This paper therefore illustrates how a theory can be tested, and how the results from such a study could be turned into practice. Organizational factors Many organizational factors may also influence the uptake of screening. Research has examined the effects of the means of invitation on the uptake rate and indicates that if the invitation is issued in person, and if the individual is expected to opt out, not in, the rates of uptake are higher (Mann et al. The place of the screening programme may also be influential with more accessible settings promoting high uptake. In addition, making attendance at a screening programme mandatory rather than voluntary will also obviously have an effect (Marteau 1993). For example, Fernbach (2002) evaluated the impact of a large media campaign designed to influence women’s self- efficacy and uptake of cervical screening. The media campaign was called the ‘Papscreen Victoria’ campaign and took place in Australia. It was evaluated by face-to-face inter- views with 1571 women at baseline and two follow-ups. The results showed that women reported an increase in awareness of cervical screening and rated this as a greater health priority than before the campaign. The women also stated after the campaign that they would find it more difficult to ring up for test results and reported lowered self-efficacy. These criticisms constitute what can be seen as a backlash against the screening of populations. Debates about the ethical issues surrounding screening have traditionally been polarized between what Sackett and Holland (1975) referred to as ‘the evangelists and snails’. These debates are best understood within the context of the four major ethical prin- ciples relating to decision-making principles in medicine: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. Beneficence – screening as beneficial to the patient Beneficence refers to the likelihood that any benefits to the patient will outweigh any burdens. Screening should therefore bring about benefits to the patient in terms of detecting a treatable disease or abnormality and enabling the individual’s life to be prolonged or enhanced. There is evidence both in favour and against screening as a benefit to the patient. Evidence for beneficence In terms of screening for hypertension, Hart (1987) has argued ‘we are surely under a moral if not legal obligation to record blood pressure at least once in every 5 year span for every registered adult in our practice’. In terms of cervical screening it has been estimated that for every 40,000 smears, one life has been saved (Lancet 1985). In terms of breast cancer, reports from the Health Insurance Plan Study (Shapiro et al. Results at follow-up indicated that the study group were still benefiting after 12 years (Shapiro et al.