Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published online before print October 17, 2007
Psychosom Med 2007, doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e318157b12e
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robles, T. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Robles, T. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Dermatology
Right arrow Social Support
Right arrow Stress and Coping
© 2007 by American Psychosomatic Society

Original Article


Received December 6, 2006
Returned for revision July 23, 2007

Stress, Social Support, and Delayed Skin Barrier Recovery

Theodore F. Robles , PhD


Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Theodore F. Robles, PhD, E-mail: robles{at}psych.ucla.edu.


   Abstract

Objective: To examine the effect of a brief laboratory stressor and social support before the stressor on cardiovascular and cortisol responses, and skin barrier recovery after skin disruption. Methods: Eighty-five healthy participants (mean age 22.9 ± 4.4 years) underwent a "tape-stripping" procedure that disrupts normal skin barrier function, and were randomly assigned to a No Stress (reading task), Stress (Trier Social Stress Test), or Stress + Social Support condition (support from a confederate before the stressor). Skin barrier recovery was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss from up to 2 hours after skin disruption. Results: Compared with the No Stress condition, the stressor delayed skin barrier recovery by 10% at 2 hours after skin disruption (effect size, r = .29), and increased anxiety (r = .24), negative affect (r = .22), cardiovascular activity (r values from .4–.6), and among male participants, cortisol levels (r = .40). Social support did not influence psychological or physiological responses or skin barrier recovery. Larger physiological responses to the tasks did not predict slower skin barrier recovery. Instead, larger systolic blood pressure responses predicted faster skin barrier recovery (r = .26). Conclusions: This study replicated the effects of short-term laboratory stressors on skin barrier recovery, further establishing the relevance of skin barrier recovery for future research. The support manipulation did not influence physiological responses or skin barrier recovery, suggesting that future research on social support, physiology, and objective health outcomes should focus on naturalistic social interactions, relationships, and stressors.

Key Words: acute stress, social support, wound healing, cardiovascular reactivity, cortisol, skin barrier recovery







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Psychosomatic Society