What the Biopsychosocial Model Looks Like in Real Life

Introduction

Chapter 1 established the theoretical architecture of the biopsychosocial model, its domains, its logic, and its contrast with the biomedical tradition. This chapter examines its application. What does that model look like when applied to real people, real diseases, and real inequities? Theory becomes powerful only when it illuminates the mechanisms driving the outcomes clinicians and public health professionals encounter every day.

The biopsychosocial model views health as emerging from dynamic interactions among biological vulnerabilities, psychological processes, and social contexts, not as isolated factors operating independently. The pathway domains in this chapter are teaching anchors rather than discrete compartments: stress biology, psychological appraisal, nutrition, structural inequity, and life-course timing continually overlap. Readers should connect this chapter back to Chapter 1 for the model’s theoretical logic, Chapter 2 for biological mechanisms such as allostatic load and epigenetic regulation, Chapter 3 for the psychological drivers that mediate perception, coping, motivation, and behavior change, and Chapter 4 for social and structural drivers.

Across each pathway, the same logic applies: biological changes do not occur in a vacuum. They are primed by psychological states, shaped by social environments, and perpetuated or reversed by the structures of the world the person inhabits. Because these domains are interrelated, effective interventions rarely target a single domain; they coordinate biological care, psychologically informed support, and structural change.

Pathway Domain 1: The Stress-Trauma Neurobiology Loop

One of the most well-documented biopsychosocial pathways in contemporary health science is the relationship between early social adversity and long-term biological dysregulation. Chronic stress — particularly the kind produced by unsafe social environments, poverty, abuse, and neglect — does not simply feel bad. It physically reshapes the developing brain and body in ways that elevate disease risk for decades.

The HPA Axis Under Siege

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is the body’s primary stress-response system. Under acute stress, the HPA axis releases cortisol, which mobilizes energy, sharpens attention, and suppresses non-urgent systems, including the immune and digestive systems. This response is adaptive; it helps organisms survive acute threats. The problem arises when the threat is chronic rather than acute.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2025) detail how chronic stress exposure, particularly during sensitive developmental periods, can lead to hyperactivity of the HPA axis. Rather than returning to baseline after a stressor resolves, the axis remains tonically activated. Cortisol floods the system at levels that, over time, shrink hippocampal volume (impairing memory and emotional regulation), reduce neuroplasticity, suppress immune surveillance, and increase systemic inflammation. The biology of the chronically stressed person is measurably different from that of the person who has not been chronically stressed. Critically, this biological recalibration can occur in children.

Adverse Childhood Experiences: The Dose-Response Relationship

Pediatrician and researcher Nadine Burke Harris brought the HPA stress mechanism into devastating clinical focus through her work on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). ACEs encompass ten categories of childhood adversity: physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; physical and emotional neglect; exposure to household violence; household substance abuse; household mental illness; parental separation or divorce; and incarceration of a household member. The original ACE study, conducted by Felitti et al. (1998) in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surveyed over 17,000 adults and found a striking dose-response relationship between ACE score and adult disease.

Burke Harris synthesizes this evidence compellingly: an ACE score of 4 or higher is associated with a sevenfold increase in alcoholism, a doubling of cancer risk, a fourfold increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and — most alarmingly for its implications — a twelvefold increase in suicide risk. An ACE score of 3 or higher elevates depression risk threefold and heart disease sevenfold. These are not correlations explained away by confounding. They represent a biological mechanism: repeated cortisol flooding epigenetically silences genes coding for immune resilience, disrupts the development of stress-regulatory circuits, and produces what Burke Harris calls “toxic stress” a qualitatively different, developmentally damaging form of stress activation.

Table 1. ACEs as biopsychosocial events: social origins, psychological effects, and biological consequences. Adapted from Burke Harris (2014) and Felitti et al. (1998).

Resilience as a Biological and Social Intervention

The National Academies (2025) workshop on stress and resilience is explicit that resilience is not simply a psychological trait — it is a biologically grounded capacity that can be built, trained, and restored at any life stage. Neurobiologically, secure attachment relationships in early childhood activate the opioid and oxytocin systems, directly counteracting stress-response activation and promoting hippocampal neurogenesis. Early mentoring programs have been shown to reduce ACE impacts by 20–30% in longitudinal data. These findings underscore a critical point: the same social forces that create biological vulnerability can, if redirected, create biological resilience.

Pathway Domain 2: The Gut-Brain-Microbiota Axis

The second major biopsychosocial pathway explored in this chapter concerns an organ system that medicine long treated as purely digestive: the gut. Over the past two decades, a revolution in microbiome science has revealed that the approximately 38 trillion microorganisms inhabiting the human digestive tract are not passive bystanders. They are active participants in neurological function, immune regulation, and mental health — and they are profoundly sensitive to the biological, psychological, and social conditions of the person they inhabit.

The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis: A Bidirectional Highway

Merlo, Bachtel, and Sugden (2024) provide a comprehensive synthesis of the brain-gut-microbiota (BGM) system, which they describe as a progressively recognized factor in mental and brain health. The BGM system operates as a bidirectional communication network connecting the gastrointestinal system and the brain through multiple channels: the vagus nerve (carrying signals directly from gut to brain stem), enteric neurotransmitters (the gut produces approximately 95% of the body’s serotonin and substantial quantities of GABA and dopamine precursors), immune signaling molecules, and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) produced by microbial fermentation that cross the blood-brain barrier and directly modulate neuroinflammation.

What this means clinically is that the state of the microbiome is not merely a digestive matter. A dysbiotic gut — one in which the diversity and balance of microbial communities is disrupted — sends altered signals to the brain. Specifically, dysbiosis reduces SCFA production, increasing gut permeability (“leaky gut”), thereby allowing bacterial endotoxins to enter the systemic circulation and trigger low-grade neuroinflammation. Merlo et al. (2024) report that meta-analyses of over 1,500 individuals with mental health diagnoses show consistent patterns of microbial depletion, particularly of pyruvate-producing bacteria. This shift in microbial diversity adversely affects the absorption of key amino acids and impairs brain health.

Nutrition as a Social Determinant of Neurological Health

Merlo et al. (2024) are explicit that the BGM axis is a channel through which social conditions reach the brain. Food insecurity( lack of food), a social driver, is among the most powerful disruptors of microbial diversity. When people cannot afford or access a diverse diet, the microbiome simplifies. Simplified microbiomes produce fewer neuroprotective SCFAs, less serotonin substrate, and greater neuroinflammatory signaling. The downstream effect is measurable in population-level mental health data: communities with high rates of food insecurity have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and cognitive decline — not simply because poverty is stressful (though it is), but because poverty produces a specific biological cascade through the gut-brain axis.

Chen et al. (2026) provide prospective structural evidence for this pathway. In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort (N = 1,647; median follow-up 12.3 years), greater adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet was associated with a significantly slower decline in total grey matter volume — each three-unit increase in MIND diet score corresponded to a 0.279 cm³/year slower decline (95% CI 0.089–0.469), equivalent to approximately 2.5 years of reduced brain ageing. Higher MIND adherence was also associated with slower increases in lateral ventricular volume, reflecting 8.0–20.1% attenuation in age-related brain changes.

The biopsychosocial significance of this finding is threefold. Biologically, MIND-recommended foods — berries, leafy greens, fish, poultry, and olive oil — are rich in antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, and anti-inflammatory compounds that directly reduce oxidative stress and neuroinflammation. Psychologically, preserving grey matter volume maintains cognitive reserve, which buffers against the psychological burden of cognitive decline and dementia. Socially, adherence to the MIND diet was significantly associated with educational attainment and socioeconomic position in the Chen et al. (2026) cohort: participants in the highest tertile of MIND adherence were more likely to be college-educated (83.4% vs. 62.1%) and less likely to be current smokers (5.4% vs. 14.8%). The brain-protective diet itself is a socially distributed resource.

Table 2. Biopsychosocial mapping of the gut-brain-microbiota axis. Adapted from Merlo et al. (2024) and Chen et al. (2026).

Pathway Domain 3: Social Inequities Amplifying Biology

The third pathway examined in this chapter addresses a question that purely biological or psychological models cannot answer: why do patterns of disease closely mirror those of social inequality? Why do communities with higher rates of poverty, racism, and social marginalization bear greater burdens of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental illness, and premature mortality, even after controlling for behavioral differences? The answer lies in the biological mechanisms through which social conditions reach the body.

Marmot’s Social Gradient: Status as a Biological Signal

Michael Marmot’s landmark 2005 analysis demonstrated what has become known as the social gradient in health: health outcomes do not simply differ between the very poor and everyone else but follow a continuous gradient across the entire social hierarchy. Each step down in social status, whether measured by income, education, or occupational rank, is associated with worse health outcomes. The Whitehall studies of British civil servants showed that even within a fully employed, nationally insured population, those in lower administrative grades had higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and mortality than those in higher grades. This gradient cannot be explained by healthcare access or poverty alone; it reflects the biological consequences of chronic social subordination.

Marmot identifies the mechanism as allostatic load — the cumulative biological wear on the body produced by repeated or chronic stress activation. Low social status produces a specific psychological stressor: chronic subordination, perceived lack of control, and status threat. This activates the HPA axis and sympathetic nervous system. Over years and decades, the resulting cortisol dysregulation elevates blood pressure, dysregulates glucose metabolism, suppresses immune function, and accelerates cellular aging (as measured by telomere shortening). The social gradient is inscribed in biology.

Geronimus, Hicken, Keene, and Bound’s weathering study provides an empirical bridge between social hierarchy and Chapter 2’s biology of allostatic load. Using NHANES data for adults aged 18–64, they found that Black adults had higher allostatic load scores than White adults at all ages, especially from ages 35–64, and that racial differences were not explained by poverty alone. This finding is important because it shows that structural racism and high-effort coping become embodied across cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune systems, not only through individual income or behavior.

Structural Racism as a Biological Mechanism

Gee and Ford (2011) extend the Marmot framework by demonstrating that structural racism,  operating through policies, institutions, and built environments rather than through individual prejudice, functions as a fundamental cause of biological health inequity. Their analysis identifies three primary pathways through which structural racism reaches the body: residential segregation, immigration policy, and intergenerational transmission.

Residential segregation concentrates poverty, environmental pollutants, food deserts, and limited healthcare access. Even if individuals within segregated communities report no direct personal experiences of discrimination, the structural conditions of their neighborhoods expose them to higher rates of air pollution, toxic waste proximity, food insecurity, and neighborhood violence. Each of these is a biological stressor. The cumulative effect is elevated allostatic load: chronically higher cortisol, greater inflammatory burden, earlier telomere shortening, and accelerated cardiovascular aging, independent of individual behavior.

The psychological pathway is equally important. Gee and Ford (2011) detail how chronic exposure to racial microaggressions, subtle, often unintentional signals of devaluation, activates a psychological state of chronic vigilance. This vigilance is not paranoia; it is an adaptive response to a real social environment. But vigilance is biologically expensive. The sympathetic nervous system activation that accompanies chronic social threat keeps cortisol elevated, suppresses immune function, and increases cardiovascular reactivity. Over decades, this physiological vigilance tax accumulates as hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and elevated cardiovascular mortality. This is the biological mechanism behind well-documented racial disparities in hypertension, not genetics, but the physiological cost of navigating a racially stratified society.

Class, Food, and the Microbiome: Fielding-Singh’s Analysis

Priya Fielding-Singh’s sociological study, How the Other Half Eats (2021), provides an on-the-ground account of how social class structures are not just about what people eat, but also about the meaning, effort, and emotional labor involved in feeding families across the socioeconomic spectrum. Drawing on 160 interviews and ethnographic observations with racially and economically diverse families, Fielding-Singh documents how affluent families use food as a tool of health optimization, building meals around nutritional goals, accessing specialty grocery stores, and viewing dietary choices as reflections of parental competence. Low-income families, by contrast, face systematic structural barriers: higher food costs relative to income, limited access to fresh produce and diverse foods, time poverty from multiple jobs, and food environments saturated with ultra-processed options.

The biopsychosocial implications are direct. Fielding-Singh’s data show that class-based differential access to nutrition. The communities described in her work align precisely with the patterns Merlo et al. (2024) identify as driving neuroinflammation and mental health decline. The social determinant of food access reaches the body via the gut-brain axis. The psychological effects, parental guilt, shame, helplessness, and the emotional labor of feeding children under food insecurity add a psychological load that itself activates stress pathways. Social structure becomes a biological reality through the mediating pathways of diet, stress, and microbial communities.

Table 3. Social determinants of health mapped to biopsychosocial mechanisms and disease outcomes.

Pathway Domain 4: Cumulative Life Course Effects

The pathways described above—stress-trauma neurobiology, the gut-brain-microbiota axis, and the amplification of biology by social inequity—do not operate independently or at a single moment in time. They interact, compound, and accumulate across the life course. Understanding health outcomes in middle age or late life requires tracing cascades of biopsychosocial exposures that begin before birth and continue through every developmental period. This section therefore builds directly on Chapter 2’s discussion of biological embedding and Chapter 4’s focus on structural conditions, while anticipating Chapter 3’s treatment of psychological coping, appraisal, and motivation.

Halfon’s Life Course Health Development Framework

Neal Halfon and Miles Hochstein (2002) articulated the Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework to organize research from developmental biology, epigenetics, neuroscience, and social epidemiology into a coherent explanatory model. The framework rests on the observation that health trajectories are determined by the interaction between biological programming and environmental experience across the entire lifespan. Health is not a stable state achieved at some point and maintained. It is a dynamic developmental process that is continuously shaped by the conditions individuals encounter at each life stage.

Halfon and Forrest (2018) later elaborated this into seven principles of life course health development, of which three are particularly relevant to biopsychosocial integration: timing (the effects of exposures depend on when in development they occur), plasticity (biological systems retain some capacity for change throughout the lifespan), and complexity (health development emerges from non-linear interactions among biological, behavioral, and social factors). The framework explicitly rejects single-cause models of disease and maintains that health disparities result from developmental trajectories shaped by differential social exposures from birth onward.

Sensitive Periods and the Biology of Timing

One of the most important insights from life course research is the concept of sensitive periods — developmental windows during which biological systems are particularly susceptible to environmental influence. During prenatal development, exposure to maternal cortisol programs the fetal HPA axis — babies born to chronically stressed mothers have altered stress-response set points before drawing their first breath. In early childhood, the quality of attachment relationships shapes the development of prefrontal cortical circuits governing emotion regulation and executive function. In adolescence, the brain undergoes a second wave of synaptic pruning that is particularly sensitive to substance exposure, stress, and social experience.

Colen, Geronimus, Bound, and James extend this life-course logic to maternal and infant health. Among women who were poor in childhood, upward socioeconomic mobility reduced the probability of low birthweight for White women, but the same protective association did not reach significance for Black women. Their findings show that socioeconomic mobility is not simply a protective exposure distributed equally across groups; under structural racism, mobility itself may involve role overload, token stress, discrimination, and identity negotiation that can shape prenatal biology.

The National Academies (2025) workshop specifically examined these sensitive periods and their implications for resilience-building interventions. The central finding was that the same neuroplasticity that makes early adversity damaging also makes early intervention powerful: interventions during sensitive periods have outsized and more durable effects than equivalent interventions applied later. A dollar invested in early childhood programs generates substantially higher returns in health, educational, and economic outcomes than the same dollar invested in remediation at age 40.

ACEs, the Microbiome, and Compounding Disadvantage

The life course model becomes most clinically powerful when it integrates the pathways described earlier. Consider the following cumulative trajectory — a scenario not exceptional but representative of millions of lives in the United States:

A child is born into poverty. Maternal cortisol has primed the fetal HPA axis for hyperreactivity. The neighborhood food environment is dominated by ultra-processed foods. Microbial diversity is limited from infancy.

By age 5, the child has experienced 3 or more ACEs: household substance abuse, emotional neglect, and neighborhood violence. Toxic stress chronically activates the HPA axis. Hippocampal development is impaired. The microbiome is further disrupted by stress-related cortisol elevating gut permeability.

In adolescence, the impaired prefrontal cortex (from early toxic stress) reduces impulse control, increasing risk for substance use, which further damages microbial communities and elevates neuroinflammatory signaling. Poor diet, driven by food insecurity and limited cooking time in a single-parent household, compounds microbiome dysbiosis.

In adulthood, the individual presents with depression, hypertension, and pre-diabetes. No single cause explains this cluster. It is the accumulated biological product of two decades of biopsychosocial adversity: early ACEs (social/psychological) priming HPA dysregulation (biological), sustained food insecurity (social) disrupting the gut-brain axis (biological), and structural racism (social) maintaining residential segregation that limits healthcare access and sustains the stressors at every stage.

This is what Merrill Singer’s syndemic theory describes: not simple co-occurrence of diseases but biologically interacting disease clusters driven by shared social conditions. The syndemic perspective insists that treating hypertension, depression, and pre-diabetes as separate clinical problems misses the shared upstream driver. Social determinants frameworks — including Marmot’s gradient, Gee and Ford’s structural racism analysis, and Fielding-Singh’s documentation of food inequality — integrate these pathways and point toward the structural interventions that can actually interrupt the compounding cycle.

Readiness for Change as a Biopsychosocial Variable

An often-overlooked dimension of life-course health is an individual’s capacity to engage in health behavior change at any given moment. Health professionals frequently encounter patients who do not adhere to evidence-based recommendations such as dietary changes, exercise programs, medication regimens, or stress management practices. Too often, non-adherence is attributed to motivation or willpower. Madsen, John, Miller, and Warren (2003) offer a more structural and clinically useful explanation rooted in McClusky’s theory of margin.

McClusky’s theory defines an individual’s Margin in Life (MIL) as the ratio between available energy or resources (power) and the demands placed upon them (load). The formula is simple in expression and profound in implication: Margin = 1 − Load/(Load + Power). When the load exceeds the power, the margin is less than 0.5; the individual has insufficient surplus energy to take on anything new, including health behavior change. When power exceeds load, the margin is greater than 0.5; the individual has the capacity to act, grow, and adapt.

Madsen et al. (2003) tested this theory empirically across 464 employees in four organizations, finding a significant correlation between overall MIL and readiness for change (RFC) (r = .298, p < .01). Work-related MIL alone showed a correlation of .288 (p < .01) with RFC. Importantly, the study found that age positively predicted MIL (p = .045) while length of company tenure negatively predicted it (p = .041), and educational level was negatively associated with MIL — likely because higher education correlates with more complex, demanding roles that increase load without proportionally increasing power.

In a biopsychosocial life course context, MIL is not an organizational abstraction. It is a clinical reality. Biologically, chronic stress, allostatic load, chronic pain, and the sequelae of ACEs all reduce the energy available to meet even everyday demands, leaving no margin for the effortful work of behavior change. Psychologically, depression, anxiety, learned helplessness, and low self-efficacy shrink perceived power. Socially, poverty, caregiving demands, housing insecurity, and workplace inequality massively increase the load while diminishing power. The patient who fails to maintain the dietary changes prescribed after a cardiac event is not lacking willpower — they are operating with a severely depleted margin, a state produced by the accumulated biopsychosocial conditions of their life course.

Table 4. Life course stages mapped to biopsychosocial exposures, mechanisms, consequences, and intervention windows. Adapted from Halfon & Hochstein (2002), National Academies (2025), and Chen et al. (2026).

Syndemic Multipliers in Inequity

The four pathway domains described in this chapter do not operate sequentially, independently, or as discrete causal boxes. They converge, interact, and amplify one another, producing disease burdens far exceeding what any single pathway would predict. Syndemic theory provides the analytical framework for understanding these multiplied effects.

Marmot’s (2005) gradient amplifies ACE-gut effects: poverty reduces access to the nutrient-rich diet that supports microbial diversity, while simultaneously sustaining the chronic subordination stress that activates HPA pathways. The biological result is dual: neuroinflammation from gut dysbiosis and HPA-driven immune dysregulation converge to produce compounded chronic disease risk — metabolic, cardiovascular, and neurological — in the same individuals.

Gee and Ford’s (2011) structural racism analysis reveals how chronic microaggressions (psychological stressors) are embedded through allostatic load into the biology of hypertension and metabolic disease. These biological conditions then limit the physical and cognitive resources available for health-promoting behavior, reducing MIL (Madsen et al., 2003), which further reduces RFC for the dietary and lifestyle changes that could break the cycle. The biological and behavioral effects of structural racism are self-perpetuating without structural-level intervention.

Fielding-Singh’s (2021) food inequality data show how class-based food access operates through the BGM axis: low dietary diversity → simplified microbiome → reduced SCFA production → neuroinflammation → increased depression and cognitive decline. Depression then reduces motivation for dietary diversity, completing the syndemic loop. Meanwhile, food insecurity produces parental psychological distress — guilt, helplessness, shame — which activates the parental stress response, impairing the attachment quality that provides neurobiological resilience to the next generation. Social conditions produce biological effects that give rise to psychological states that reproduce social conditions across generations.

Halfon’s (2002) life course model tracks these cumulative hits longitudinally: early ACEs priming HPA dysregulation interact with sustained food insecurity disrupting microbiota resilience, compounded by the allostatic load of structural racism, producing in middle age the polychronic disease clusters — depression, hypertension, diabetes, accelerated brain aging — that appear in clinical settings as separate diagnoses but are expressions of a single biopsychosocial history.

Table 5. Syndemic clusters: biological interactions, psychological amplifiers, social drivers, and structural interventions.

Discussion Questions

The following questions are designed to support critical engagement with chapter material in seminar discussion, written assignments, or examination preparation. Model answers are provided to guide deeper thinking, and students are encouraged to go beyond them.

Conclusion

The biopsychosocial model is not merely a theoretical lens—it is a map of the mechanisms through which the social world reaches the biological body and through which the biological body shapes psychological experience. This chapter has traced interrelated pathway domains through which these interactions are not abstract but measurable, not metaphorical but molecular.

Chronic stress primes the HPA axis and reshapes developing brains; ACEs inscribe social adversity into epigenetic patterns that elevate disease risk across a lifetime. The gut-brain-microbiota axis translates food access — itself a social driver — into neurobiological signals that regulate mood, cognition, and inflammation. Structural racism and the social gradient of health position entire populations within chronic biological stress responses that produce the cardiovascular, metabolic, and neurological disparities visible in any epidemiological table. And the life course model reveals these as accumulating cascades, each stage of adversity compounding the biological vulnerability established by prior ones, while the theory of margin reminds us that the person confronting these cascades may not have sufficient resources to respond to clinical recommendations without structural support.

The resources engaged throughout this chapter, from Burke Harris’s ACE synthesis to Merlo et al.’s gut-brain axis review, from Marmot’s gradient to Gee and Ford’s structural racism analysis, from Fielding-Singh’s food inequality documentation to Chen et al.’s brain aging evidence, and Madsen et al.’s readiness for change framework, collectively demonstrate that health cannot be fixed at the biological level alone. It must be understood and addressed at all three levels simultaneously: the biological mechanisms that carry social and psychological experiences into the body; the psychological states that mediate between social conditions and biological responses; and the social structures that determine the distribution of adversity and protection across populations.

References

Burke Harris, N. (2014). How childhood trauma affects health across a lifetime [TED Talk]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/nadine_burke_harris_how_childhood_trauma_affects_health_across_a_lifetime

Chen, H., Hailili, G., Tong, L., Fei, L., Cao, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Melo van Lent, D., & Yuan, C. (2026). Adherence to the MIND diet and longitudinal brain structural changes over a decade: Evidence from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2025-336957

Colen, C. G., Geronimus, A. T., Bound, J., & James, S. A. (2006). Maternal upward socioeconomic mobility and Black–White disparities in infant birthweight. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 2032–2039. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.076547

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Fielding-Singh, P. (2021). How the other half eats: The untold story of food and inequality in America. Little, Brown Spark.

Gee, G. C., & Ford, C. L. (2011). Structural racism and health inequities. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 8(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000130

Geronimus, A. T., Hicken, M., Keene, D., & Bound, J. (2006). “Weathering” and age patterns of allostatic load scores among Blacks and Whites in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 826–833. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.060749

Halfon, N., & Forrest, C. B. (2018). The emerging theoretical framework of life course health development. In N. Halfon, C. B. Forrest, R. M. Lerner, & E. M. Faustman (Eds.), Handbook of Life Course Health Development (pp. 19–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_2

Halfon, N., & Hochstein, M. (2002). Life course health development: An integrated framework for developing health, policy, and research. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(3), 433–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00019

Madsen, S. R., John, C., Miller, D., & Warren, E. (2003). The relationship between an individual’s margin in life and readiness for change. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, 759–766.

Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 365(9464), 1099–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71146-6

Merlo, G., Bachtel, G., & Sugden, S. G. (2024). Gut microbiota, nutrition, and mental health. Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, 1337889. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1337889

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2025). Applying neurobiological insights on stress to foster resilience across life stages: Proceedings of a workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29243

Singer, M. (2009). Introduction to syndemics: A critical systems approach to public and community health. Jossey-Bass.