The Continuous Struggle against Stressful Life Events - Essay Example

?Stress and Immunity: The Continuous Struggle against Stressful Life Events Introduction The evident connection between stress, immunity, and severalkinds of disease perhaps reveal the fact that stress can weaken the immune system of our body. The immune system is the protective reaction of the body to foreign elements, such as viruses and bacteria. Our immune response functions to defend our body from numerous kinds of illness (Lovallo 2005). Immune responses are fascinatingly complex. Thus, there are a vast number of methods to assess immune response in a living being, and these diverse methods can at times generate confusing, inconsistent findings in research. Numerous empirical findings in animals and humans substantiate linkage between physical and psychological types of stress and immunological adjustments. Adjustments in the immune response have been reported to go with bereavement, unemployment, coping with phobia, divorce, work-related stress, examinations, exercise, etc (Rice 2000). This essay discusses comprehensively the relationship between stress and immunity. The first section gives an overview of such relationship; the second presents a brief discussion of the cultural and social influences on stress and immunity; the third focuses on the relationship between stress and schizophrenia, with a discussion of policy and practice implications; and last sums up the entire discourse. Stress and Immunity The assumption that stress can increase the likelihood of acquiring physical illnesses is not completely unknown. Proofs that stress can bring about physical ailment started to build up in the 1930s (Edworthy 2000). The term ‘psychosomatic disease’— actual physical illnesses that were believed to be brought about, to a certain extent, by psychological aspects like stress-- was known far and wide. The common psychosomatic ailments were asthma, tension headaches, peptic ulcers, eczema, and high blood pressure (Rice 2000, 64). These illnesses were not considered as ‘unreal’ physical diseases. The concept of ‘psychosomatic’ has usually been used wrongly to denote physical illnesses that are ‘imagined,’ but that is a completely distinct set of symptoms (Rice 2000, 64). Instead, according to Lovallo (2005), psychosomatic illnesses were regarded as ‘real’ untreated problems that were profoundly caused by stress. The term ‘psychosomatic’ illness has slowly been neglected since the 1970s because studies have reported that stress can heighten the development of a wide range of other illnesses previously assumed to be wholly caused by physiological factors. Hence, it has become evident that psychosomatic illnesses should not be given a specific classification since there is nothing unusual about them (Rice 2000). However, numerous findings show that experimentally stimulated stress can weaken immunity of animals. To be exact, stressors like restrictions, shock, congesting, and food limit weaken different features of immune responses in animal subjects (Steckler, Kalin, & Reul 2005). Apparently, according to Ayers and colleagues (2007), stress can also have an effect on the immune responses of animals in natural environments. Chronic diseases have a harmful effect on immune responses and stress makes the capabilities of individuals to cope with these diseases much worse. Segerstrom and Miller (2004), in a comprehensive evaluation of three decades of empirical work on stress and immunity, report that constant stress can weaken ‘humoral immune response’ which defend the body from bacteria and other extracellular pathogens, and ‘cellular immune responses’ which defend the body from viruses and other intracellular pathogens (as cited in Ayers, Baum, McManus 2007, 168). Moreover, according to Ayers and colleagues (2007), they conclude that the length of a stressful episode is a major aspect establishing its effect on immune responses. As stated by Steckler and colleagues (2005), lifelong stressors, like looking after a gravely ailing loved one or long-term joblessness, are linked with more severe immune restraint than comparatively short-lived stressors. Giving emphasis to the significance of the relationship between immune responses and stress, a new research uncovered proofs that continual stress may lead to ‘premature aging of immune system cells’ (Weiten, Dunn & Hammer 2011, 147). The research reported that females who were coping with difficult, tedious, lifelong stress, such as caring for a family member with a grave, long-term disease, had immune system cells that seemed to be much aged than their sequential age, possibly explaining why individuals experiencing heavy stress usually look worn-down and aged. Inopportunely, findings indicate that in the presence of stress, the immune responses of individuals do not defend against diseases as strongly as they age (Weiten et al. 2011). In summary, researchers have organised remarkable proof that stress can momentarily hamper our immune responses, which can further expose us to contagious illnesses. Since immune responses are analysed best when immunity has been challenged, investigations of stress and immunity have took into account the efficiency and resilience of the immune system functioning after human vaccination. The lifelong stress of being a carer and the stress of examinations were drawn upon to illustrate reactions to inoculation during a stressful episode (Ayers et al. 2007). In both instances, according to Ayers and colleagues (2007), the responses of the immune system to vaccines were stronger in the non-stressed than in the stressed groups. Physiologic mechanisms, such as wound healing, that demand ample antibody functioning are interrupted by behavioural and environmental stress (Rice 2000). For instance (Institute of Medicine 2001, 56): The stress of long-term caregiving to dementia patients delays the healing of full-thickness, cutaneous-punch biopsy wounds. Acute stress induced by taking academic examinations delayed the healing of mucosal wounds in the oral cavity; the delay was association with diminished proinflammatory cytokine responses in the peripheral blood of those who experienced the stress. Furthermore, the impacts of disaster-linked stress reactions on immune functioning have been examined. Main impacts of stress of natural calamities involve changes in adaptive and normal immunity, as shown by poor natural killer-cell cytotoxicity (NKCC) and fewer functioning T lymphocytes (Everly & Lating 2002, 98). Survivors of the Hurricane Andrew that were studied had poor NKCC and lesser CD4+ (helper T cells) and CD8+ (suppressor T cells). Changes in NKCC were associated with behavioural and psychological aspects (Everly & Lating 2002, 98): survivors revealed more harmful invasive feelings, more serious traumatic disorder syndrome, and more severe loss of resources. According to Everly and Lating (2002), these findings are in agreement with assumptions developed from a mounting literature on psychological stress and immunity, which has reported weakened NKCC due to natural disasters, marital conflict, and grief. The reported weakening of adaptive and normal immunity was statistically relevant in stressed individuals but did not indicate higher susceptibility to illness or contagion in any person. Nevertheless, these findings reveal that psychosocial occurrences, industrial disasters, and natural calamities are stressors that can have an effect on immune responses and thus influence both physical and psychological health (Edworthy 2000). An abundance of evidence shows that stress affects physical wellbeing. Nonetheless, according to the Institute of Medicine (2001), almost all of the pertinent studies are correlational, hence it cannot explain decisively that stress leads to ill health. The relationship between stress and disease may be caused by another factor. Maybe a certain feature of personality or a certain form of physiological tendency makes individuals excessively disposed to understand occurrences as stressful and excessively disposed to understand negative physical conditions as indications of disease (Steckler et al. 2005). Furthermore, some scholars claim that numerous of the studies made use of methodologies that may have magnified the evident relationship between stress and immunity. On the other hand, stress may merely change health-associated behaviours, boosting the prevalence of ‘unhealthy routines’ (Steckler et al. 2005), such as substance abuse, which raise individuals’ susceptibility to illnesses and distress their immunity. In spite of methodological issues supporting magnified correlations, studies in this field constantly shows that ‘strength’ of the linkage between immunity and stress is moderate. Evidently, stress is not an overwhelming factor that generates unavoidable impacts on wellbeing. Some individuals cope with stress more effectively than others (Ayers et al. 2007). Moreover, stress is merely one player in a jam-packed field: a multifaceted system of biological, psychological, and social aspects affect immunity, such as the decisions individuals make every day, environmental pollutants, contact with contagious agents, and genetic makeup. Social and Cultural Influences on Wellbeing Individuals exist as members of societies and social groups. Social factors have traditionally been the focus of studies to demonstrate the troubles of individuals who do not have the capacity to deal with their immediate environment. It is widely recognised that socioeconomic standing has a deep impact on wellbeing through diverse channels (Jansson 2010). Since the 1980s, it has become apparent that the extent of social inequality in a particular society in linked to wellbeing. And the extent of social relations or assimilation and the social groups wherein individuals are rooted are linked to mortality and morbidity. Social resources and social solidity are related to wellbeing (Lovallo 2005). Furthermore, there are features of the work setting that can create occupational stress and considerably affect employees’ wellbeing. Psychological and social conditions can bring about lifelong stress. Chronic anxiety, poor self-confidence, social seclusion, and poor coping mechanisms, have overwhelming impacts on wellbeing. These psychosocial threats build up throughout life and enlarge the risks for mental disorders and early death (Everly & Lating 2002). Lengthy durations of anxiety and the absence of social support are detrimental in any part of life they occur (Rice 2000). According to Lovallo (2005), the poorer individuals are in wealthy nations, the more widespread these difficulties turn into. But how do these psychosocial aspects influence physical wellbeing? In urgent situations, people’s nervous system and hormones get them ready to handle a direct physical hazard by activating the ‘fight or flight response’ (Lovallo 2005, 71): boosting alertness or attentiveness, prompting amassed energy or power, and increasing the heart rate. Even though the stresses of contemporary inner-city life seldom require tedious or even mild physical exercise, activating the stress reaction deflect resources and energy from numerous physiological mechanisms vital to lifelong health protection. The immune and cardiovascular systems are disrupted (Rice 2000). As stated earlier, momentarily, this is all right; but if individuals are stressed chronically, according to Everly and Lating (2002), they become more susceptible to a diverse array of illnesses like stroke, high blood pressure, infections, heart attack, diabetes, and depression. Most important is the problem of urban sprawl and congestion. Research on a number of organisms has reported that when the size of their population goes beyond the territorial limit, in spite of great amounts of water and food, some apparently strong animals dwindle. This basic need for individual space seems to be absolute among animals (Weiten 2003). According to Weiten (2003), this comprises human beings, who also start to manifest symptoms of dissatisfaction in congested urban zones, long queues, heavy traffic, or every time their own space is ‘broken in’. The root of this specific social influence could be naturally impulsive. Other stress-related social influences involve technological developments, financial uncertainty, human rights violation, the consequences of relocation, etc (Wilkinson, Marmot, & WHO 1998). As stated by Lovallo (2005), latest in the roll of social influences are issues of global warming and water resource while the population all over the world rapidly enlarges, straining our ways of life in relation to shortage concerns. Nevertheless, in order to understand more clearly the actual relationship between stress and immunity, particularly between stress and mental health, the following sections discuss the relationship between stress and schizophrenia, and the policy and practice implications of empirical findings in the subject. Stress and Schizophrenia Numerous theories and studies of schizophrenia claim that stress contributes to the emergence of schizophrenia. As stated by this assumption, a variety of psychological and biological aspects affect the susceptibility of individuals to schizophrenic disorders. Elevated stress may thus function to aggravate schizophrenia in a person who is susceptible (Warner 2004b). Furthermore, according to Miller and Mason (2002), studies show that elevated stress can set off deteriorations in patients who have responded well to treatment. Schizophrenic individuals are more expected to reveal a stressful life episode prior to an ill health than during a relapse phase. Likewise, stressful episodes are more prone to take place before a schizophrenic event than in a similar stretch of time for individuals taken from the mainstream population (Bartlett & Sandland 2007). In a London research, for instance, 46% of a schizophrenic population encountered a life episode that was isolated from their own behaviours in the weeks prior to an illness, in comparison to merely 12% of a population in good health (Miller & Mason 2002, 51). Miller and Mason (2002) further state that it seems that stress can aggravate events of illness in schizophrenic individuals and that, even though stress does not bring about ill health, it can affect the time of the occurrence of the first schizophrenic event. Furthermore, studies show that the life episodes taking place prior to schizophrenic events are more modest and less upsetting than those prior to occurrences of other disorders like anxiety. This receptiveness to moderate stress may clarify the reason a number of studies do not demonstrate significant variations in the response of schizophrenic individuals to stress (Shean 2004). Paradoxically, due to the delicate receptiveness of schizophrenic individuals to stress, studies report that the level of chronic stress is raised above average for numerous individuals who experience schizophrenic episodes, contributing to the their susceptibility to deterioration (Shean 2004). These pieces of evidence become logical when one considers the fact that in schizophrenia there is a shortfall in the control of brain functioning hence the brain abnormally reacts to stimuli in the environment (Warner 2004a), weakening the individual’s capacity to control his/her reaction to unfamiliar stressors. Policy Implication In the 1950s, it was known far and wide that schizophrenia was brought about by authoritative and severe parenting styles of the mothers of schizophrenic individuals and that the health of schizophrenic individual forced them to be institutionalised for extended durations, at times even permanently, for they are not able to cope with societal stressors (Jansson 2010). Both these assumptions, according to Jansson (2010), embraced by teams of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, resulted in policies and medications that are barely clear to present-day specialists. Specialists not just reprimand the mothers of schizophrenic individuals for their severe actions but also usually supported breaking completely the relationship between mothers and their children. Large numbers of schizophrenic individuals were confined in state mental facilities’ ‘chronic wards’ for long periods, thoroughly secluded from the ‘acute ward’ patients (Warner 2004, 60). According to Jansson (2010), various studies since the 1970s asserted that these policies were ill-advised and detrimental to schizophrenic individuals. Numerous studies claimed that schizophrenia is a complicated occurrence that is not rooted mainly, or, in several instances, in any way, in the behaviour of mothers (Shean 2004). If the behaviour of mothers was its main root, then what is the reason numerous schizophrenic individuals have siblings without any traces of the syndrome? According to Leathard (2003), several studies mentioned biological reasons, specifying that schizophrenia is an illness with physiological and genetic roots. Some studies, according to Jansson (2010), challenged the idea that schizophrenic individuals need institutionalisation. Although studies firmly concluded that the long-term institutionalisation of schizophrenic individuals was inefficient, damaging, and pointless, it did not illustrate the forms of supports and care they ought to acquire. Questions, such as do they require scheduled clinical visits or intensive care, and what forms of treatment would be most appropriate, were unanswered (Bartlett & Sandland 2007). Since empirical evidence was insufficient, schizophrenic individuals were placed under different setups. In view of the unwillingness of policymakers to financially support outpatient services, large numbers of schizophrenic individuals are also deprived of access to needed services. Several of them grew to be destitute, dispossessed, living in cheap housing, shelters, or the streets—usually in dangerous areas where they are open to violence and criminal activities (Cowley 2001). In the future, according to Bartlett and Sandland (2007), empirical works should uncover the forms of living setups and services that are needed by people with schizophrenia, yet even these will only become futile if financial backing and policies do not enable or put them into effect. Therefore, empirical works have to be accompanies with policy support to have a positive effect on the lives of people with schizophrenia. The pursuit for empirically grounded policies, and practice, is highly prominent in the clinical field. Indeed, it has turned into a ‘fad’ as numerous people have tried to root policy and practice in empirical works (Knapp et al. 2007). This discussion of empirical works on schizophrenia illustrates the logical grounds for policy supporters. As argued by Jansson (2010), if social workers aim to promote the welfare of their patients, they should reform those therapies and policies that studies report are damaging or unsuccessful. When more affordable techniques are discovered to be as helpful as or more helpful than more costly techniques, they must support them so as to wisely utilise taxpayers’ and consumers’ money. Practice Implication Antipsychotic medications seem to be more vital in avoiding regression in schizophrenia for individuals experiencing stressful situations, and of slight consequence for individuals in contexts where stress is more modest. According to John Wing, a social psychiatrist (Warner 2004a, 30): Drug treatment and social treatments are not alternatives but must be used to complement each other. The better the environmental conditions, the less the need for medication: the poorer the social milieu, the greater the need (or at least the use) of drugs. The stress-mitigating outcome of a helpful human setting has been shown in several British investigations. Skin-conductance and heart-rate studies have found out that schizophrenic individuals have a more elevated arousal level than average people, regardless of whether they are residing in mildly or highly stressed settings (Warner 2004a, 30). Warner (2004a) further explains that this elevated arousal level decreases when the schizophrenic individual is with a non-stressful family member but remains at a raised level when s/he is with a stressed family member. The arousal level in schizophrenic individuals in residential therapy can be conditioned by building a setting that is highly encouraging and invigorating. In these environments drug intake should not be as intensive. Drug intake for schizophrenic individuals was constantly milder in this patient-oriented psychosocial therapy (Warner 2004a). It may be assumed that when schizophrenic individuals are in a setting which is defensive but non-regressive, empowering but non-stressful, and accommodating but non-invasive, many will require fewer antipsychotic drugs (Knapp et al. 2007). On the contrary, as argued by Bartlett and Sandland (2007), schizophrenic individuals who are susceptible to severe stress will have a greater rate of regression and will have to depend on more drug intake to gain healthy functioning. Conclusions A society’s health value is a social issue not only an individual concern. It demands reforming the social system processes that damage wellbeing or immunity instead of merely reforming individual routines. Substantial amount of resources are used up yearly in marketing and promoting goods/services and unhealthy lifestyles. Concerning detriment environmental circumstances, several agricultural and business processes infuse hazardous contaminants into our drinking water, food reservoir, and air supply, every one of which seriously threaten our wellbeing. Dynamic political and economic struggles are confronted over psychological, physical, environmental, and social wellbeing. We, indeed, have strong and practical policy recommendations in the health arena. What is absent is the shared efficiency to carry them out successfully. The public’s confidence in their shared efficiency to achieve positive social change by resolute collective struggle contributes importantly to practice and policy health model of illness prevention. These social endeavours assume different shapes. They enhance public knowledge of health risks, develop useful techniques for raising health statuses, inform policymakers, and encourage public support and opinion to put policy programmes into effect. References Ayers, S. et al (2007) Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine. UK: Cambridge University Press. Bartlett, P. & Sandland, R. (2007) Mental Health Law: Policy and Practice. UK: Oxford University Press. Buelow, S. (1996) “Meaning versus the Stress-diathesis Model: A Review of Kingdon and Turkington’s Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy of Schizophrenia” Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(3), 229+ Cowley, S. (2001) Public health in policy and practice: a sourcebook for health visitors and community nurses. UK: Elsevier Health Sciences. Edworthy, A. (2000) Managing Stress. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Everly, G. & Lating, J. (2002) A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of Human Stress Response. New York: Plenum Publishers. Jansson, B. (2010) Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate: From Policy Practice to Social Justice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Knapp, M. et al (2007) Mental Health Policy and Practice across Europe. New York: Open University Press. Institute of Medicine (2001) Health and Behaviour: The Interplay of Biological, Behavioural, and Societal Influences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Leathard, A. (2003) Interprofessional collaboration: from policy to practice in health and social care. London: Psychology Press. Lovallo, W. (2005) Stress & health: biological and psychological interactions. London: Sage Publications. Miller, R. & Mason, S.A. (2002) Diagnosis: Schizophrenia: a comprehensive resource for patients, families, and helping professionals. Columbia University Press. Rice, V. (2000) Handbook of Stress, Coping, and Health: Implications for Nursing Research, Theory, and Practice. New York: Sage Publications, Inc. Shean, G. (2004) Understanding and Treating Schizophrenia: Contemporary Research, Theory, and Practice. New York: Haworth Clinical Practice Press. Steckler, T., Kalin, N.H., & Reul, J.M. (2005) Handbook of Stress and the Brain: Stress: integrative and clinical aspects. UK: Elsevier. Warner, R. (2004a) The Environment of Schizophrenia: Innovations in Practice, Policy and Communications. New York: Routledge. Warner, R. (2004b) Recovery from Schizophrenia: Psychiatry and Political Economy. London: Routledge. Weiten, W. (2003) Psychology: Themes and Variations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Weiten, W., Dunn, D., & Hammer, E. (2011) Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Wilkinson, R., Marmot, M.G., & World Health Organisation (WHO) (1998) The Solid Facts: Social Determinants of Health. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Read More