Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430880›Full record

ArticleBrain, behavior, & immunity - health2024

An Extension to the stress-buffering model: Timing of support across the lifecourse.

Phoebe H Lam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain, behavior, & immunity - health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Phoebe H LamDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 4825 Frew St, Suite 354E, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children and adolescents exposed to severe stressors exhibit poorer health across the lifespan. However, decades of research evaluating the Stress-Buffering model suggests that social support can attenuate stressors' negative impacts. Psychoneuroimmunology research in this area has shifted from asking whether support buffers stress to when and why support would succeed (or fail) to confer protection. This article takes a lifecourse perspective and proposes that timing of support may shape support's protective value by defining the type of protection that is provided and its operating mechanisms. Specifically, it considers three temporal scenarios: support that occurs during, after, or before stressor exposure. When support intervenes at the same developmental stage as the stressor (concurrent support), buffering effects occur wherein support prevents the development of intermediary mechanisms that reflect or increase disease risk; when support is present at a developmental stage before stressor exposure (prior support), banking effects occur such that support intervenes indirectly by fortifying the individual with resilience-promoting characteristics that in turn prevents the development of intermediary mechanisms; finally, when support arrives at a developmental stage after stressor exposure (later support), counteracting effects occur such that support offsets the impacts of intermediary mechanisms on diseases. It further posits that a match between timing of support and the linkage of interest (e.g., the stressor-mechanism path vs. the mechanism-disease path) is necessary for successful protection. The present paper discusses these postulations, reviews nascent evidence, and proposes future directions.

Indexed as

BufferingLifecourseSocial supportTiming

Identifiers

PMID39430880
PMCPMC11490906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.