ABSTRACT
Objectives
Associations of stress-related coping strategies with lifespan among the general population are understudied. Coping strategies are characterized as being either adaptive or maladaptive, but it is unknown the degree to which variability in tailoring their implementation to different contexts may influence lifespan.
Method
Women (N = 54,353; Mage = 47) completed a validated coping inventory and reported covariate information in 2001. Eight individual coping strategies (e.g., Acceptance, Denial) were considered separately. Using a standard deviation-based algorithm, participants were also classified as having lower, moderate, or greater variability in their use of these strategies. Deaths were ascertained until 2019. Accelerated failure time models estimated percent changes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in predicted lifespan associated with coping predictors.
Results
In multivariable models, most adaptive and maladaptive strategies were associated with longer and shorter lifespans, respectively (e.g., per 1-SD increase: Active Coping = 4.09%, 95%CI = 1.83%, 6.41%; Behavioral Disengagement = −6.56%, 95%CI = −8.37%, −4.72%). Moderate and greater (versus lower) variability levels were similarly and significantly related to 8-10% longer lifespans. Associations were similar across age, racial/ethnic, residential income, and marital status subgroups.
Conclusions
Findings confirm the adaptive and maladaptive nature of specific coping strategies, and further suggest benefits from both moderate and greater variability in their use for lifespan among women.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants and the staff of the Nurses’ Health Study at the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, for their valuable contributions. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and/or the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Central registries may also be supported by state agencies, universities, and cancer centers. Participating central cancer registries include the following: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Seattle SEER Registry, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).