Same skills, different outcomes: structural inequality in stress management and a causal agenda for brain health — The Association Specialists
  1. Schedule
  2. Oral Presentations - Advancing Epidemiological Methods 1
  3. Same skills, different outcomes: structural inequality in stress management and a causal agenda for brain health

Same skills, different outcomes: structural inequality in stress management and a causal agenda for brain health (23877)

Madeleine Hinwood 1 2 , Emily Walkom 1 2 , Elizabeth Ditton 1 2 , Sue Bowden 1 2 , Michael Nilsson 1 2 3 4 , Rohan Walker 2 5
  1. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
  2. Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
  3. Centre for Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden
  4. LKC School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  5. School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Background: Chronic stress is a plausible modifiable contributor to neurological disorders and cardiovascular disease, with decades of preclinical evidence and a growing observational literature supporting this link. Yet this evidence base has not been interrogated causally. Stress is a time-varying, socially-patterned exposure whose relationship to brain health involves multiple mediating pathways and long latency periods, conditions under which observational analyses without explicit causal framing produce misleading answers. Prior to estimating the effect of reducing chronic stress burden on population brain health, we need measurement infrastructure capable of capturing where, for whom, and under what structural conditions stress accumulates unequally over time. 

Methods: FocUS-R is a mixed-methods citizen science platform for repeated population surveillance of stress and stress management effectiveness. A pilot sample of adults completed baseline assessments including perceived stress, psychological flexibility, and social resources, then contributed 1,195 fortnightly surveillance check-ins over up to 12 months capturing stress, symptom burden, and stress management.

Results: Socioeconomic gradients were pronounced and consistent. Despite lower- and higher-income participants describing virtually identical stress management repertoires, effective stress management was achieved in only 24% of check-ins among the lowest income group compared with 62% among the highest. Psychological flexibility was positively associated with stress management overall (r=0.51) but weaker among lower-income participants (r=0.17) than higher-income participants (r=0.55). Qualitative data identified workplace inflexibility, financial strain, and time scarcity as the structural barriers limiting strategy enactment.

Conclusion: These findings illustrate a model in which stress inequalities arise not from unequal knowledge or skill, but from unequal structural opportunity to act. Repeated surveillance that captures person-environment interactions over time is a prerequisite for the causal agenda the stress-health literature now requires, identifying the effect of intervening on structural stress burden in the populations where it is highest, and where brain health consequences are likely greatest.