Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold.

Abstract

Objective:We ask whether subjective socioeconomic status (SES) predicts who develops a common cold when exposed to a cold virus. Design: 193 healthy men and women ages 21-55 years were assessed for subjective (perceived rank) and objective SES, cognitive, affective and social dispositions, and health practices. Subsequently, they were exposed by nasal drops to a rhinovirus or influenza virus and monitored in quarantine for objective signs of illness and self-reported symptoms. Main Outcome Measures: Infection, signs and symptoms of the common cold, and clinical illness (infection and significant objective signs of illness). Results: Increased subjective SES was associated with decreased risk for developing a cold for both viruses. This association was independent of objective SES and of cognitive, affective and social disposition that might provide alternative spurious (third factor) explanations for the association. Poorer sleep among those with lesser subjective SES may partly mediate the association between subjective SES and colds. Conclusions: Increased Subjective SES is associated with less susceptibility to upper respiratory infection, and this association is independent of objective SES, suggesting the importance of perceived relative rank to health.

Objective and Subjective Socioeconomic Gradients Exist for Sleep Quality, Sleep Latency, Sleep Duration, Weekend Oversleep, and Daytime Sleepiness in Adults

“…Negative affect, depression, perceived stress, self-esteem, mastery, optimism, and extraversion have previously been postulated to be confounders in the relation between subjective SEP and health; however, controlling for these variables does not attenuate the association (cf. Cohen et al, 2008; see also Adler et al, 2000). Post hoc exploratory analyses yielded largely consistent results for the associations between subjective SEP and sleep, even after controlling for mental health and perceived stress.…”

“…Subjective SEP is considered a summative measure of social status that broadly encompasses multiple socioeconomic dimensions (e.g., financial security, material wealth, and prestige; Adler et al, 1994;Adler et al, 2000;Adler & Ostrove, 1999;Schnittker & McLeod, 2005). Subjective SEP may reflect one's perceived sense of worth and their success or failure to meet their educational potential (Cohen et al, 2008;Snibbe, Stewart, & Adler, 2007). Subjective SEP likely captures "cognitive averaging" of traditional, objective SEP indicators that tap at one's perceptions of their environment and social interactions, as well as how they adjust, cope, and recover (Frijda, 1988).…”

“…In fact, subjective SEP has been found to better predict current physical and mental health, as well as changes in health status, over and above objective SEP (SinghManoux et al, 2003). A subjective SEP gradient exists for a range of health outcomes, including poorer psychological functioning (depression, negative affect, pessimism, reported stress, and general health ratings; Adler et al, 2000;Operario et al, 2004;Ostrove et al, 2000;Singh-Manoux et al, 2003), impaired physiological functioning (resting heart rate, body mass index, waist circumference, cortisol levels, vulnerability to upper respiratory infection, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome; Adler et al, 2000;Cohen et al, 2008;Manuck, Phillips, Gianaros, Flory, & Muldoon, 2010;Phillips, Neumann, Flory, Muldoon, & Manuck, 2007;Singh-Manoux et al, 2003;Wright & Steptoe, 2005), and even mortality (Kopp, Skrabski, Kawachi, & Adler, 2005;Singh-Manoux et al, 2003). It is interesting to note that inadequate sleep has been suggested as a potential culprit in the aetiology and maintenance of many of these conditions (Ayas et al, 2004;Spiegel et al, 1999;Steptoe et al, 2006).…”

Interactive Voice Response and web-based questionnaires for population-based infectious disease reporting

“…In view of the overrepresentation of people with high socio-economic status in the web group, it might be 13 expected that the members of this group would, on average, be healthier (12;18), but they were, in fact, slightly more likely to report new infections. Though there seem to be no association between socio-economic status and common cold among adults (23), there are some evidence of increased susceptibility to upper respiratory tract infections if living under low socio-economic conditions during childhood (24). A lower degree of compliance with the reporting commitment among people with low socio-economic status might be the most plausible explanation for the lower rate of infection in the IVRS group, but the web group contained more participants with large families, and children are notorious vectors of infections (25).…”

Middle class and marginal? Socioeconomic status, stigma, and self-regulation at an elite university.

“…Furthermore, with its focus on the impact of relative-rather than objective-SES, the present work builds on the substantial literature linking relative SES to health outcomes. In particular, this literature underscores the importance of defining (and examining the consequences of) individuals' SES relative to others in their context (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000;S. Cohen et al, 2008;Singh-Manoux, Marmot, & Adler, 2005; see also Sapolsky, 1993Sapolsky, , 2004.…”