Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy

Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy Protective Factors in Infancy For this discussion, refer to your assessment results from the abbreviated version of the Nicholson McBride’s Resilience Quotient Questionnaire, which you completed for your studies in Unit 2. Using your initial assessment results, consider your own life experiences that will support your critical analysis of risk and protective factors. Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy My score was a 53 which meant An exceptional level of resilience. Your score indicates that you are very resilient most of the time and rarely fail to bounce back – whatever life throws at you. You believe in making your own luck. The first moments of life begin to impact an individual as an individual and within a system. Protective factors exist, even in the earliest moments of life. “Resilience is about developing and maintaining the strength to overcome adversity,” (Davis, as cited by Murphy, 2012, p. 60). “In children, resilience can be developed by helping them develop the internal and external assets that will sustain them when life is difficult or when hard times occur” (p. 60). Consider this information as you study the process of resilience at different times in the lifespan. Describe the factors that have contributed to resiliency from the social, psychological, and biological dimensions of your life. Consider that the concept of self that has developed is a factor of the interaction of many variables and the meaning one attributes to these variables. Describe the importance of any of these factors in the environment, and identify at least one risk factor you have encountered. Remember that it is not just the factors or the traits you possess, but the interaction and utilization of these traits that impacts your experiences. Write a 250-word minimum initial post to this discussion. Include two scholarly resources. Be sure to include relevant, required information, adequate explanations, and alternative viewpoints. Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy fnhum_12_00326.pdf contentserver__5_.pdf nrrc_resilience_and_life_storms_10_2015_f.pdf REVIEW published: 21 August 2018 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00326 Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience: Is It Possible to Improve Stress Resistance? Haoran Liu 1 , Chenfeng Zhang 1 , Yannan Ji 2 and Li Yang 1,3 * 1 School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China, 3 Institute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China 2 The term “resilience” refers to the ability to adapt successfully to stress, trauma and adversity, enabling individuals to avoid stress-induced mental disorders such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. Here, we review evidence from both animal models and humans that is increasingly revealing the neurophysiological and neuropsychological mechanisms that underlie stress susceptibility, as well as active mechanisms underlying the resilience phenotype. Ultimately, this growing understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of resilience should result in the development of novel interventions that specifically target neural circuitry and brain areas that enhance resilience and lead to more effective treatments for stress-induced disorders. Stress resilience can be improved, but the outcomes and effects depend on the type of intervention and the species treated. Edited by: Guido van Wingen, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Reviewed by: Jennifer Strafford Stevens, Emory University School of Medicine, United States Selena Bartlett, Translational Research Institute, Australia *Correspondence: Li Yang [email protected] Received: 16 November 2017 Accepted: 25 July 2018 Published: 21 August 2018 Citation: Liu H, Zhang C, Ji Y and Yang L (2018) Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience: Is It Possible to Improve Stress Resistance? Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:326. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00326 Keywords: resilience, stress, depression, VTA, NAc, mPFC INTRODUCTION Resilience means ‘‘the ability to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions’’ (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Robertson et al., 2015). However, in the context of recent biological and psychological research, resilience has gained a more specific meaning. The idea of resilience as resistance to stress (Figure 1) originated in the 1970s when researchers began to study children capable of normal development despite a difficult upbringing (Masten, 2001). By the early 1990s, the emphasis of resilience research has shifted away from identifying protective factors, which involve positive emotions and the competence for self-regulation, to a study of how individuals overcome adversity and an examination of the psychosocial determinants of resilience in trauma-exposed adults (Luthar et al., 2000; Conger and Conger, 2002; Bonanno et al., 2015; Cai et al., 2017). Negative manifestations of resilience manifest as mood disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), fear, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other stress-associated negative emotions (Feder et al., 2009; Friedman, 2014; Alves et al., 2017).Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy Recent studies employing advanced technologies such as optogenetics have significantly deepened our understanding of the intrinsic biological mechanisms of resilience. This review article will first introduce the psychological and physiological perspectives of resilience, then describe the important neural circuits and neuroendocrine mechanisms involved in resilience, and finally discuss possible ways of improving resilience based on new insights provided by neurobiological studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2018 | Volume 12 | Article 326 Liu et al. Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience FIGURE 1 | A brief history of resilience research. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND FEATURES OF RESILIENCE RESEARCH ‘‘process hypothesis’’ focuses on the interaction between the individual and adverse circumstance and emphasizes that changes over time are dynamic, encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity (Luthar et al., 2000). Finally, resilience can also be considered an outcome after experienced adversity (Masten, 2001). It is worth noting that all the above concepts of stress resilience have two elements in common, adversity and positive adaptation (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013), which therefore must both be included in studies of resilience in human and animal models. In fact, most current psychological resilience studies involve four aspects: (a) baseline or pre-adversity; (b) the adversity itself; (c) post-adversity resilient outcomes; and (d) predictors of resilient outcomes; (Bonanno et al., 2015). More cross-sectional studies that integrate different types of adverse stress are needed to clarify whether different stresses share common influential pathways. This is particularly important given that the term ‘‘adversity’’ covers a wide range of experiences. For example, in humans, adversity can encompass social rejection, failure in examinations, early life stress, depression and other chronic enduring stressful experiences, while in animals it can mean social defeat, forced swimming, In the last 10 to 15 years, resilience has been examined in a range of contexts in both humans and animals. Animals that show fewer deleterious effects of stress are considered resilient (Steimer and Driscoll, 2005; Krishnan et al., 2007; Feder et al., 2009; Ergang et al., 2015). A number of animal models have been used to improve our understanding of stress resilience or susceptibility (Table 1), for example, chronic social defeat stress (CSDS; Golden et al., 2011), learned helplessness (LH; Berton et al., 2007; Fleshner et al., 2011), exposure to predator odor (Cohen et al., 2012) or chronic mild stress (CMS; Delgado y Palacios et al., 2011). Resilient and susceptible animals can be distinguished by their performance in specific behavioral tasks. Whether resilience should be defined as a trait, process or outcome is frequently debated in human resilience studies. Connor and Davidson (2003) believe that resilience represents personal qualities that enable an individual to thrive in the face of adversity; therefore, in their opinion, resilience is a trait comprising a constellation of characteristics that enable individuals to adapt to the circumstances they encounter (Connor and Davidson, 2003). Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy In contrast, the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2018 | Volume 12 | Article 326 Evaluation and comparison of brain function while conducting various behavioral tasks relating to stress sensitivity in humans tusing non-invasive imaging technology (such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI). Johnson et al. (2014) and Peterson et al. (2014) Exploration of suitable methods for improving adaptability using resilience interventions. Langley et al. (2015) foot shock and other types of acutely stressful stimulation (Janakiraman et al., 2016). Depending on the specific stressful process, resilience might be understood as the ability: (1) to maintain natural functions and elude adversity; and (2) to deal with the stress positively and obtain some benefit from it. Neurobiological studies show that resilience is mediated by both the absence of certain key molecules that occur in susceptible animals and impair their coping ability, and the presence of distinct adaptation mechanisms seen in resilient individuals that promote normal behavior (Krishnan et al., 2007; Friedman et al., 2016). The former and latter are considered to be mechanisms of passive and active resilience, respectively (Russo et al., 2012). REPRESENTATIVE ANIMAL MODELS OF RESILIENCE CSDS (Golden et al., 2011) and CMS (Liu et al., 2018) are two of the most widely used resilient animal models and have been widely applied in the study of resilience and depression, although the more aggressive behavior of the outbred CD-1 mouse requires careful monitoring in the CSDS test (Albonetti and Farabollini, 1994). CMS consists of various random negative stressful stimuli, such as foot shock, swimming in cold water, light/dark succession and hunger (Chang and Grace, 2014), and may be more similar to the types of stress experienced by humans. Since female mice exposed to CMS are less stable than males (Franceschelli et al., 2014), gender differences should be taken into account when using this model. Although such animal models have dramatically improved our understanding of the neural substrates underlying resilience, they have been less useful in defining the complex interactions between environmental stress, protective factors and individual personality. For example, increased self-criticism and decreased self-compassion enhance the risk of depression in humans (Ehret et al., 2015), but these effects are not represented (and arguably could not be represented) in animal models of resilience. On the other hand, techniques used to study regions of the brain involved in the regulation of human resilience, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET) or deep brain stimulation (DBS), are limited by low spatiotemporal resolution and ethical considerations. Therefore, an appropriate combination of human and animal models is required to enable researchers to gain a precise understanding of resilience. BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESILIENCE Behavioral experiments and imaging technology Psychotherapy or intervention Questionnaire investigation Other animal models Humans Humans Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org Rodents Humans Hemington et al. (2017) Crowley and Lucki (2005) and Overstreet et al. (2005) El Yacoubi et al. (2003) Breeding of rodent strains with markedly different responses in acute stress environments, such as the tail suspension test. These models are less directly applicable in resilience studies. Comparisons across inbred lines of rats and mice, and selective breeding of rodent lines that display differential stress responses. Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy Investigation of populations to uncover different resilience responses and resilience scale performances. Acute stress models Use of predator odor Rodents Rodents Cohen et al. (2012) Berton et al. (2007) and Brachman et al. (2016) A subset of animals exposed to unavoidable aversive stimuli (e.g., foot shock) develops learned helplessness, i.e., fails to escape when escape available. Animals are exposed to predator-scent stress. Rodents Chronic mild stress (CMS, unpredictable stress) Learned helplessness (LH) Early life stress Rodents Rodents Suo et al. (2013) and Higuchi et al. (2016) Heim and Binder (2012) and Santarelli et al. (2017) Nasca et al. (2015) Chronic restraint stress Rodents Experimental mice are exposed to an aggressive retired breeder CD1 mouse. After interaction the experimental mice are housed in the same cage with a perforated divider separating them from the CD1 mouse. This is a well-established protocol yielding stress-susceptible or resilient cohorts. The rodents are housed in a restrainer with no mobility for a short period daily and then are replaced in their home cage. Pups are separated from their parents during the first postnatal week. Paternal stress and gestational stress operate similarly, but with different separation periods. Rodents are exposed to varying physical and psychosocial stresses, for example, shaking, cage tilting. Rodents Chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) Model overview Krishnan et al. (2007) and Isingrini et al. (2016) Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience Subject Stress model TABLE 1 | Research methods or models of stress resilience. References Liu et al. A range of psychosocial factors that contribute to resilience have been identified. The factors include active coping (SnowTurek et al., 1996; Hanton et al., 2013), optimism (Warner et al., 2012), cognitive reappraisal (Maren, 2008; Farchi and Gidron, 2010; Troy et al., 2010), prosocial behavior (Staub and Vollhardt, 2008), social support and others (Ozbay et al., 2008; 3 August 2018 | Volume 12 | Article 326 Liu et al. Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience not constitute a theory, nor should it be seen as equivalent to positive psychology or competence.’’ Although neurobiological research into resilience has less theoretical underpinning, new discoveries have emerged in recent years. For example, resilient individuals have been shown to have drastically different behavioral performances and neural substrates compared with, more susceptible individuals (Feder et al., 2009), while some recent study shows that a K+ channel in ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopamine (DA) neurons differentially mediates neuronal activity in resilient, normal and susceptible mice (Friedman et al., 2016; Han and Nestler, 2017; Barrese et al., 2018). Cai et al., 2017). Social support is one of the main protective elements that influence family well-being, parenting quality and child resilience (Armstrong et al., 2005). A 10-year longitudinal study found that social support from partners promoted resilience in response to economic stress (Conger and Conger, 2002). In contrast, poor social support enhanced stress, leading to elevated heart rate (Stansfeld et al., 1997), depression (Oxman and Hull, 2001) and increased susceptibility to PTSD (Johnson et al., 1997). Although the onset of psychiatric disorders such as PTSD and depression might be prevented by promoting adaptation to stress, the key to resilience and mental well-being lies in emotion regulation processes (Hu et al., 2014). For example, social support and resilience have multiple mediation effects on the regulation of cognitive emotion and acute stress in Chinese male soldiers (Cai et al., 2017). Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy However, there are also studies that claim there are no relationships between resilience and social support, lifestyle factors or work-related factors (Corina and Adriana, 2013; Black et al., 2017), although it is generally acknowledged that resilience buffers against various types of stress. These inconsistent behavioral results might be attributed to the use of different resilience questionnaires, the sample size and type of human subjects, and non-standardization of the test procedure, suggesting that it is critical to identify the physiological substrates underlying the manipulation of resilience. Animal models and emerging technologies, such as optogenetics (Friedman et al., 2014, 2016), electrophysiological recording (Christoffel et al., 2015; Friedman et al., 2016) and animal imaging systems (Delgado y Palacios et al., 2011; Anacker et al., 2016), are generating a great deal of interest in the elucidation of the neural circuits and molecules involved in resilience. NEURAL BASIS OF RESILIENCE Researchers have demonstrated that various brain structures and pathways are involved in resilience (Franklin et al., 2012; Russo et al., 2012), and we review these below. Medial Prefrontal Cortex The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) exerts strong negative control over stress pathways, and maladaptive behavior in response to stress involves mPFC dysfunction (Wang et al., 2014). Inhibiting neuronal activity in the mPFC by DBS is effective at alleviating symptoms in depressed humans or rodent depression models (Covington et al., 2010; Warden et al., 2012), while enhanced mPFC excitation results in depression-like behavior (Wang et al., 2014). mPFC lesions augment the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in response to emotional stress, while, in contrast, intra-mPFC injection of corticosterone attenuates this response (Diorio et al., 1993). Neural activity and levels of immediate early gene expression are lower in the ventral mPFC following stressors such as CSDS, predator stress, or water submersion in susceptible rodents (Covington et al., 2010). Interestingly, depressive patients demonstrate decreased neuronal activity in the postmortem anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a brain area with functional homology to the mPFC in rodents (Covington et al., 2010). Moreover, hypoactivity is corrected by optogenetic induction of cortical burst firing in animals and is accompanied by the reversal of CSDS-induced social anxiety and anhedonia (Covington et al., 2010; Adamec et al., 2012). In addition, the subgenual cingulate cortex, which is also homologous to the rodent mPFC, is hyperactive in mood disorders (Ressler and Mayberg, 2007; Drevets et al., 2008; Hamani et al., 2011). The lateral prefrontal cortex often demonstrates hypoactivity in neuroimaging studies of depressed patients (Kinou et al., 2013; Rive et al., 2013). Selective activation of the mPFC–lateral habenula (LHb; Li et al., 2011; Warden et al., 2012) or the mPFC–amygdala pathway (Martinez et al., 2013; Moscarello and LeDoux, 2013) results in depression-like activity. However, stimulation of the mPFC–dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) pathway promotes resilience (Warden et al., 2012). The precise mechanisms by which the mPFC interacts with its downstream targets and integrates different behavioral responses to stress, and in particular resilience to stress, deserve further investigation. A DYNAMIC FRAMEWORK OF RESILIENCE In early studies, psychological models of resilience were established to describe the construction of active pathways of resilience. Garmezy et al. (1984) emphasized the interaction between adverse stimulation and the consequences of stress, while Rutter (1987) elaborated four pathways to elucidate how individuals process adversity, which involve reduction in risk impact and negative chain reactions, establishment and maintenance of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and the opening up of opportunities.Discussion: ?Protective Factors in Infancy These early theories had a great impact on psychological perspectives of resilience, and subsequently these and other contemporaneous researchers attempted to uncover how resilience interacts with environmental stress and other personal traits to influence the behavior of individuals. The concept of ‘‘biopsychospiritual homeostasis’’ was introduced by Richardson (2002), whose model proposed that resilience was a dynamic equilibrium state in which physical, psychological and spiritual ingredients, as well as various adversity or protective factors reached a balance. However, Rutter (2012) was forthright in declaring that resilience ‘‘should Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 4 August 2018 | Volume 12 | Article 326 Liu et al. Biological and Psychological Perspectives of Resilience and reduction in hippocampal volume, are associated with stress-induced conditions such as MDD (Franklin et al., 2012). Glutamatergic ventral hippocampus (vHIP) ? nucleus accumbens (NAc) projections regulate susceptibility to CSDS. Reduced activity in the vHIP has been observed in mice resilient to CSDS (Bagot et al., 2015). Suppression of vHIP-NAc synaptic transmission by optogenetic induction of long-term depression is pro-resilient, while enhanced activity of this pathway is pro-susceptible. However, optogenetic activation of either mPFC or basolateral amygdala afferents to the NAc is pro-resilient (Bagot et al., 2015), highlighting an important circuit-specific mechanism in depression or stress resilience. Using magnetic resonance imaging, social avoidance in C57BL/6 mice with CSDS correlated positively with volume of the hippocampal CA3, accompanied by synchronized anatomic differences between hippocampus and several other areas, including the VTA, the cingulate cortex and the hypothalamus (Anacker et al., 2016). Various postsynaptic receptors of the hippocampus, such as G-protein coupled gama-aminobutyric acid B (GABAB ) receptors, play important roles in stress regulation. Different isoforms of GABAB receptor subunits, such as G … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

RECOMMENDED: Protective and Risk Factors of Infant Mortality | Instant Homework Help