dictionarycooper

Experiencing discrimination in the workplace — where many adults spend one-third of their time, on average — may be harmful to your heart health.

A 2023 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that people who reported high levels of discrimination on the job were more likely to develop high blood pressure than those who reported low levels of workplace discrimination.

Workplace discrimination refers to unfair conditions or unpleasant treatment because of personal characteristics — particularly race, sex, or age.

How can discrimination affect our health?

“The daily hassles and indignities people experience from discrimination are a specific type of stress that is not always included in traditional measures of stress and adversity,” says sociologist David R. Williams, professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Yet multiple studies have documented that experiencing discrimination increases risk for developing a broad range of factors linked to heart disease. Along with high blood pressure, this can also include chronic low-grade inflammation, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.

More than 25 years ago, Williams created the Everyday Discrimination Scale. This is the most widely used measure of discrimination’s effects on health.

Who participated in the study of workplace discrimination?

The study followed a nationwide sample of 1,246 adults across a broad range of occupations and education levels, with roughly equal numbers of men and women.

Most were middle-aged, white, and married. They were mostly nonsmokers, drank low to moderate amounts of alcohol, and did moderate to high levels of exercise. None had high blood pressure at the baseline measurements.

How was discrimination measured and what did the study find?

The study is the first to show that discrimination in the workplace can raise blood pressure.

To measure discrimination levels, researchers used a test that included these six questions:

• How often do you think you are unfairly given tasks that no one else wanted to do?
• How often are you watched more closely than other workers?
• How often does your supervisor or boss use ethnic, racial, or sexual slurs or jokes?
• How often do your coworkers use ethnic, racial, or sexual slurs or jokes?
• How often do you feel that you are ignored or not taken seriously by your boss?
• How often has a coworker with less experience and qualifications gotten promoted before you?

Based on the responses, researchers calculated discrimination scores and divided participants into groups with low, intermediate, and high scores.

• After a follow-up of roughly eight years, about 26% of all participants reported developing high blood pressure.
• Compared to people who scored low on workplace discrimination at the start of the study, those with intermediate or high scores were 22% and 54% more likely, respectively, to report high blood pressure during the follow-up.

How could discrimination affect blood pressure?

Discrimination can cause emotional stress, which activates the body’s fight-or-flight response. The resulting surge of hormones makes the heart beat faster and blood vessels narrow, which causes blood pressure to rise temporarily. But if the stress response is triggered repeatedly, blood pressure may remain consistently high.

Discrimination may arise from unfair treatment based on a range of factors, including race, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. The specific attribution doesn’t seem to matter, says Williams. “Broadly speaking, the effects of discrimination on health are similar, regardless of the attribution,” he says, noting that the Everyday Discrimination Scale was specifically designed to capture a range of different forms of discrimination.

What are the limitations of this study?

One limitation of this recent study is that only 6% of the participants were nonwhite, and these individuals were less likely to take part in the follow-up session of the study. As a result, the study may not have fully or accurately captured workplace discrimination among people from different racial groups. In addition, blood pressure was self-reported, which may be less reliable than measurements directly documented by medical professionals.

What may limit the health impact of workplace discrimination?

At the organizational level, no studies have directly addressed this issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that improving working conditions, such as decreasing job demands and increasing job control, may help lower blood pressure, according to the study authors. In addition, the American Heart Association recently released a report, Driving Health Equity in the Workplace, that aims to address drivers of health inequities in the workplace.

Encouraging greater awareness of implicit bias may be one way to help reduce discrimination in the workplace. Implicit bias refers to the unconscious assumptions and prejudgments people have about groups of people that may underlie some discriminatory behaviors. You can explore implicit biases with these tests, which were developed at Harvard and other universities.

On an individual level, stress management training can reduce blood pressure. A range of stress-relieving strategies may offer similar benefits. Regularly practicing relaxation techniques or brief mindfulness reflections, learning ways to cope with negative thoughts, and getting sufficient exercise can help.

About the Author

Julie Corliss, Executive Editor, Harvard Heart Letter

Julie Corliss is the executive editor of the Harvard Heart Letter. Before working at Harvard, she was a medical writer and editor at HealthNews, a consumer newsletter affiliated with The New England Journal of Medicine. She … See Full Bio View all posts by Julie Corliss

About the Reviewer

Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Howard LeWine is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD

Earlier this year, US defense secretary Lloyd Austin was hospitalized for complications resulting from prostate cancer surgery. Details of his procedure, which was performed on December 22, were not fully disclosed. Press statements from the Pentagon indicated that Austin had undergone a minimally invasive prostatectomy, which is an operation to remove the prostate gland. Minimally invasive procedures are performed using robotic instruments passed through small “keyhole” incisions in the patient’s abdomen.

Just over a week later, Austin developed severe abdominal, hip, and leg pain. He was admitted to the intensive care unit at Walter Reed Hospital on January 2 for monitoring and further treatment. Doctors discovered that Austin had a urinary tract infection and fluid pooling in his abdomen that were impairing bowel functioning. The defense secretary was successfully treated, but then readmitted to the ICU on February 11 for what the Pentagon described as “an emergent bladder issue.” Two days after undergoing what was only described as a “non-surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia,” Austin was back at work. His cancer prognosis is said to be excellent.

Austin’s ordeal was covered extensively in the media. Although we cannot speculate about his specific case, to help our readers better understand the complications that might occur after a prostatectomy, I spoke with Dr. Boris Gershman, a urologist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Gershman is also a member of the advisory and editorial board for the Harvard Medical School Guide to Prostate Diseases.

How common are urinary tract infections after a prostatectomy?

Minimally invasive prostatectomy is generally well tolerated. In one study that examined complications among over 29,000 men who had the operation, the rate of urinary tract infections was only 2.1%. The risk of sepsis — a more serious condition that occurs if the body’s response to an infection damages other organs — is much lower than that.

How would a urinary tract infection occur?

Although urinary tract infections are rare after prostatectomy, bacteria can travel into the urinary system through a catheter. An important part of a prostatectomy involves connecting the urethra — which is a tube that carries urine out of the body — directly to the bladder after the prostate has been taken out. As a last step in that process, we pass a catheter [a soft silicone tube] through the urethra and into the bladder to promote healing. Infection risks are minimized by giving antibiotics both during surgery and then again just prior to removing the catheter one to two weeks after the operation.

How do you treat urinary infectious complications when they do happen?

It’s not unusual to find small amounts of bacteria in the urine whenever you use a catheter. Normally they don’t cause any symptoms, but if infectious complications do occur, then we’ll admit the patient to the hospital and treat with broad-spectrum antibiotics that treat many different kinds of bacteria at once. We’ll also obtain a urine culture to identify the bacterial species causing the infection. Based on culture results, we can switch to different antibiotics that attack those microbes specifically. The course of treatment generally lasts 10 to 14 days.

Lloyd Austin also had gastrointestinal complications. Why might that have occurred?

Although I cannot speculate about Austin’s specific case, in general gastrointestinal complications are very rare — affecting fewer than 2% of patients treated using robotic methods. However, a few different things can happen. For instance, the small intestine can “fall asleep” after surgery, meaning it temporarily stops moving food and wastes through the bowel.

This is called an ileus. It can be due to multiple reasons, including as a result of anesthetics or pain medications. An ileus generally resolves on its own if patients avoid food or water by mouth for several days. If it causes too much pressure in the bowel, then we “decompress” the stomach by removing accumulated fluids through a nasogastric tube, which is threaded into the stomach through the nose and throat.

Some patients develop a different sort of surgical complication called a small bowel obstruction. We treat these the same way: by withholding food and water by mouth and removing fluids with a nasogastric tube if necessary. If the blockages are caused by scar tissues, in rare cases this may require a second surgery to fix the obstructing scar tissue.

Fluids might also collect in the pelvis after lymph nodes are removed during surgery. What’s happening in these cases?

Pelvic lymph nodes that drain the prostate are commonly removed during prostatectomy to determine if there is any cancer spread to the lymph nodes. A possible risk from lymph node removal is that lymph fluid might leak out after the procedure and pool up in the pelvis. This is called a lymphocele. Most lymphoceles are asymptomatic, but infrequently they may become infected. When that happens, we treat with antibiotics, and we might drain the lymphocele using a percutaneous catheter [which is placed through the skin]. Fortunately, newer surgical techniques are helping to ensure that lymphoceles occur very rarely.

Are there individual factors that increase the risk of prostatectomy complications?

Certainly, patients can have risk factors for infection. Diabetes, for instance, can inhibit the immune system, especially when patients have poor glycemic or glucose control [a limited ability to maintain normal blood sugar levels]. If patients have autoimmune diseases, or if they’re taking immunosuppressive medications, they may also be at increased risk of infectious or wound healing complications with surgery, and in some cases, may instead be treated with radiation to avoid these risks.

Thanks for walking me through this complex topic! Any parting thoughts for our readers?

It’s important to discuss the potential risks of surgery with your doctor so you can be fully informed. That said, prostatectomy these days using the minimally invasive approach has a very favorable risk profile. The majority of patients do really well, and fortunately severe complications requiring hospital readmission are very rare.

About the Author

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD

When measles broke out in 31 states several years ago, health experts were surprised to see more than 1,200 confirmed cases –– the largest number reported in the US since 1992.

Measles is a very contagious, preventable illness that may cause serious health complications, especially in younger children and people who are pregnant, or whose immune systems aren’t working well. While a highly effective vaccine is available, vaccination rates are low in some communities across the US. This sets the stage for large outbreaks.

Here are four things that everyone needs to know about measles.

Measles is highly contagious

This is a point that can’t be stressed enough. A full 90% of unvaccinated people exposed to the virus will catch it. And if you think that just staying away from sick people will do the trick, think again. Not only are people with measles infectious for four days before they break out with the rash, but the virus can live in the air for up to two hours after an infectious person coughs or sneezes. Just imagine: if an infectious person sneezes in an elevator, everyone riding that elevator for the next two hours could be exposed.

It’s hard to know that a person has measles when they first get sick

The first symptoms of measles are a high fever, cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes (conjunctivitis), which could be confused with any number of other viruses, especially during cold and flu season. After two or three days people develop spots in the mouth called Koplik spots, but we don’t always go looking in our family members’ mouths. The characteristic rash develops three to five days after the symptoms begin, as flat red spots that start on the face at the hairline and spread downward all over the body. At that point you might realize that it isn’t a garden-variety virus — and at that point, the person would have been spreading germs for four days.

Measles can be dangerous

Most of the time, as with other childhood viruses, people weather it fine, but there can be complications. Children less than 5 years old and adults older than 20 are at highest risk of complications. Common and milder complications include diarrhea and ear infections (although the ear infections can lead to hearing loss), and one out of five will need to be hospitalized, but there also can be serious complications:

• One in 20 people with measles gets pneumonia. This is the most common cause of death from the illness.
• One in 1,000 gets encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain that can lead to seizures, deafness, or even brain damage.
• One to three in 1,000 children who get it will die.

Another possible complication can occur seven to 10 years after infection, more commonly when people get the infection as infants. It’s called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE. While it is rare (four to 11 out of 100,000 infections), it is fatal.

Vaccination prevents measles

The measles vaccine, usually given as part of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, can make all the difference. One dose is 93% effective in preventing illness; two doses gets that number up to 97%. 

• Usually, the first dose is given between ages 12 to 15 months.
• A second (booster) dose is commonly given between ages 4 to 6, although it can be given as early as a month after the first dose.
• If an infant ages 6 to 12 months will be going to a place where measles regularly occurs, a dose of vaccine can be given as protection. This extra dose will not count as part of the required series of two vaccines.

The MMR is overall a very safe vaccine. Most side effects are mild, and it does not cause autism. Most children in the US are vaccinated, with 91% of 24-month-olds having at least one dose and about 93% of those entering kindergarten having two doses.

Herd immunity occurs when enough people are vaccinated that it’s hard for the illness to spread. It helps protect those who can’t get the vaccine, such as young infants or those with weak immune systems. To achieve this you need about 95% vaccination, so the 93% isn’t perfect — and in some states and communities, that number is even lower. Most of the outbreaks we have seen over the years have started in areas where there are high numbers of unvaccinated children.

If you have questions about measles or the measles vaccine, talk to your doctor. The most important thing is that we keep every child, every family, and every community safe.

About the Author

Claire McCarthy, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Claire McCarthy, MD, is a primary care pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. In addition to being a senior faculty editor for Harvard Health Publishing, Dr. McCarthy … See Full Bio View all posts by Claire McCarthy, MD

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) –– or myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), to be specific ––  is an illness defined by a group of symptoms. Yet medical science always seeks objective measures that go beyond the symptoms people report.

A new study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has performed more diverse and extensive biological measurements of people experiencing CFS than any previous research. Using immune testing, brain scans, and other tools, the researchers looked for abnormalities that might drive health complaints like crushing fatigue and brain fog. Let’s dig into what they found and what it means.

What was already known about chronic fatigue syndrome?

In people with chronic fatigue syndrome, there are underlying abnormalities in many parts of the body: The brain. The immune system. The way the body generates energy. Blood vessels. Even in the microbiome, the bacteria that live in the gut. These abnormalities have been reported in thousands of published studies over the past 40 years.

Who participated in the NIH study?

Published in February in Nature Communications, this small NIH study compared people who developed chronic fatigue syndrome after having some kind of infection with a healthy control group.

Those with CFS had been perfectly healthy before coming down with what seemed like just a simple “flu”: sore throat, coughing, aching muscles, and poor energy. However, unlike their experiences with past flulike illnesses, they did not recover. For years, they were left with debilitating fatigue, difficulty thinking, a flare-up of symptoms after exerting themselves physically or mentally, and other symptoms. Some were so debilitated that they were bedridden or homebound.

All the participants spent a week at the NIH, located outside of Washington, DC. Each day they received different tests. The extensive testing is the great strength of this latest study.

What are three important findings from the study?

The study had three key findings, including one important new discovery.

First, as was true in many previous studies, the NIH team found evidence of chronic activation of the immune system. It seemed as if the immune system was engaged in a long war against a foreign microbe — a war it could not completely win and therefore had to keep fighting.

Second, the study found that a part of the brain known to be important in perceiving fatigue and encouraging effort — the right temporal-parietal area — was not functioning normally. Normally, when healthy people are asked to exert themselves physically or mentally, that area of the brain lights up during an MRI. However, in the people with CFS it lit up only dimly when they were asked to exert themselves.

While earlier research had identified many other brain abnormalities, this one was new. And this particular change makes it more difficult for people with CFS to exert themselves physically or mentally, the team concluded. It makes any effort like trying to swim against a current.

Third, in the spinal fluid, levels of various brain chemicals called neurotransmitters and markers of inflammation differed in people with CFS compared with the healthy comparison group. The spinal fluid surrounds the brain and reflects the chemistry of the brain.

What else did study show?

There are some other interesting findings in this study. The team found significant differences in many biological measurements between men and women with chronic fatigue syndrome. This surely will lead to larger studies to verify these gender-based differences, and to determine what causes them.

There was no difference between people with CFS and the healthy comparison group in the frequency of psychiatric disorders — currently, or in the past. That is, the symptoms of the illness could not be attributed to psychological causes.

Is chronic fatigue syndrome all in the brain?

The NIH team concluded that chronic fatigue syndrome is primarily a disorder of the brain, perhaps brought on by chronic immune activation and changes in the gut microbiome. This is consistent with the results of many previous studies.

The growing recognition of abnormalities involving the brain, chronic activation (and exhaustion) of the immune system, and of alterations in the gut microbiome are transforming our conception of CFS –– at least when caused by a virus. And this could help inform potential treatments.

For example, the NIH team found that some immune system cells are exhausted by their chronic state of activation. Exhausted cells don’t do as good a job at eliminating infections. The NIH team suggests that a class of drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors may help strengthen the exhausted cells.

What are the limitations of the study?

The number of people who were studied was small: 17 people with ME/CFS and 21 healthy people of the same age and sex, who served as a comparison group. Unfortunately, the study had to be stopped before it had enrolled more people, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That means that the study did not have a great deal of statistical power and could have failed to detect some abnormalities. That is the weakness of the study.

The bottom line

This latest study from the NIH joins thousands of previously published scientific studies over the past 40 years. Like previous research, it also finds that people with ME/CFS have measurable abnormalities of the brain, the immune system, energy metabolism, the blood vessels, and bacteria that live in the gut.

What causes all of these different abnormalities? Do they reinforce each other, producing spiraling cycles that lead to chronic illness? How do they lead to the debilitating symptoms of the illness? We don’t yet know. What we do know is that people are suffering and that this illness is afflicting millions of Americans. The only sure way to a cure is studies like this one that identify what is going wrong in the body. Targeting those changes can point the way to effective treatments.

About the Author

Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Health Letter

Dr. Anthony L. Komaroff is the Steven P. Simcox/Patrick A. Clifford/James H. Higby Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and editor in chief of the Harvard … See Full Bio View all posts by Anthony L. Komaroff, MD