Study design and subjects
A survey on possible risk factors for the development of asthma and allergies was undertaken between April 2012 and January 2013 in six cities randomly selected in Guangdong province, southern China (Guangzhou, Huizhou, Shaoguan, Jiangmen, Zhanjiang and Heyuan). We selected one or two convenient areas (e.g. schools, companies, government agencies or factories) in each city for cluster sampling. Original questionnaire data were obtained from 28,144 persons. Of these, 13,491 (47.94%) were men and 14,653 (52.06%) women. A matched case-control study was conducted to investigate the relationship between life events, stress management skills and allergic diseases. Case and control participants were selected from these 28,144 respondents. The case participants were willing to participate and met the following inclusion criteria: (i) 18 years of age or older; (ii) with one or more self-reported allergic diseases (asthma or bronchitis, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis); (iii) not pregnant or lactating, and (iv) no critical illness (eg. depression/anxiety, DM, hypertension, cardiovascular or renal diseases, et al.) or intake of medication in the previous 2 weeks.
Self-reported allergic diseases were selected by positive answers to any of the following questions:
- Asthma: Have you ever had asthma? If so, has a doctor diagnosed the disease?
- Allergic rhinitis: Have you ever had ‘hay fever’ or other allergic nasal symptoms (sneezing, nasal itching, blocked nose or runny nose) in the absence of a cold or flu, g. from pollen or animals? A doctor’s diagnosis for the disorder was required.
- Atopic dermatitis: Have you ever had symptoms of itchy rash called atopic eczema or eczema localized to flexural regions (such as folds of the elbows, behind the knees), facial, or generalized to the body? In addition, a doctor’s diagnosis was asked about.
For each case participant, we validate the allergic diseases by asking “has a doctor diagnosed the disease” or by evaluating their medical histories getting from each unit managers (at least one year medical examination report between 2012 and 2013 for each participant). Only include cases with the “yes” response or with the “allergic disease” medical record. And two matched control participants were randomly selected from the respondents who had reported no symptoms suggestive of asthma or atopic disease during their lifetime, and were incidence-density matched to the case participants by departments of the selected area, sex and age (±3 years). Eligible control participants were 18 years or older, not pregnant or lactating, and had no history of any other serious chronic disease. As is standard in incidence-density matching, a control participant could serve as a control for more than one case participant[22]. A total of 1340 participants with allergies and 2662 healthy control participants were recruited.
Questions on stressful life events
We asked if the respondent had ever experienced various specific potentially stressful life events. The events were based on a commonly used life event scale[23]. The original list included 14 items, and subjects were asked to respond either “yes (scored 1)” or “no (scored 0)”. Based on preliminary data analysis, and knowledge of life events generally regarded as stressful, the events were divided into three groups: disease or death of family members or close friends; conflicts in personal relationships (including relationships with family members, spouses, colleagues or friends); life changes or other events (e.g. economic, career, lifestyle, living environment). Indicators used in the analyses included a total stressful life event score (range from 0 to 14) obtained by summing all 14 items as well as subscale scores related to particular domains (Table 2).
Assessment of stress management skills
The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) was used to measure stress management skills. The scale was developed by Walker and colleagues in 1987[24] and later revised as the HPLP-II[25]. The Chinese version of HPLP-II was developed by Lee and Loke, who established validity and credibility with an internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.91[26]. It measures six dimensions of self-reported health-promoting behaviours, including spiritual growth (nine items), health responsibility (nine items), physical activity (eight items), nutrition (nine items), interpersonal relations (nine items) and stress management (eight items). Each subgroup can be used independently[27]. In this study, we only used the stress management subscale, the Cronbach’s alpha of which was reported in Hong Kong as 0.75[28]. It includes eight items (Table S1), covers most approaches of managing or reducing stress. Participants were asked to rate the frequency of stress management behaviours using the four-point Likert scale as 1 (never or rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), 4 (routinely). The total stress management skill score are all 8 items score combined, ranges from 8 to 32, higher scores represent more engagement in stress management behaviour. For descriptive scores and logistic regression analysis, the total stress management skill ratings were trichotomized as good (25–32), moderate (17–24) or poor (8–16).
Data collection and other exposure
To increase participation and ensure the completeness and truthfulness of each questionnaire, recruitment was conducted in conference halls of different selected units by trained investigators in cooperation with the administrators. The self-administered questionnaire included an introduction detailing the objectives of the study and guaranteeing anonymity and confidentiality of data. Further questions on demographic factors (age, sex, height, body weight and education), active and passive smoking history, alcohol drinking habits, physical activity, history of allergic disease, stressful life events and stress management skills were surveyed.
Educational level was categorized into three groups: (i) junior high school education (compulsory schooling), (ii) high school education, and (iii) any university, college or higher education by reported highest academic background at baseline. Body mass index was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in metres. We categorized body mass index as <18.5 (malnourished), 18.5–23.9 (normal weight), or ≥24 (overweight), which differs from the World Health Organization classification[28] but is suitable for Chinese adult populations[29]. Information on smoking was based on questions regarding never smoking, currently smoking and ever having smoked. Participants were asked to state how often they drank alcohol and engaged in physical activity (never, sometimes, often, always) through the questions, “Do you normally drink alcohol more than three times per week?” and “Do you exercise vigorously for 20 min or more at least three times a week (such as brisk walking, bicycling, aerobic dancing, using a stair climber)?”
Statistical analysis
For demographic and exposure variables, differences in means or proportions between participants with and without allergic diseases were evaluated using Student’s t or chi-squared tests, as appropriate. The risks of allergies with exposure to stressful events and stress management skills were analyzed using conditional logistic regression models. The number of stressful events was used as a continuous variable to predict allergies outcomes; in addition, the total number of life events was categorized as 0, 1–2 and >3. For stress management skills, stratified analyses were conducted among subgroups with or without stressful events. The logistic regression model included the following potential confounders: age, sex, education, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol intake and physical activity. The interaction effect between stressful events and stress-management skills was further evaluated by multiplicative and additive models. We tested for multiplicative interaction by including the product term in multivariate logistic regression. Additive interaction was assessed using the method of Rothman[30].
The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the odds ratios (ORs) were calculated; P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0 and SAS 9.3.