To assess the impact of resilience, the ability to withstand and bounce back from adversity, on measures of well-being, self-reported stress, and mental health diagnoses. This study was a cross-sectional survey of participants seen at an executive health practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 2012 through September 2016. Participants completed an anonymous survey that included demographic information and 3 validated survey instruments—the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the 12-item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment Scale (LASA), and the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Self-reported history of mental health diagnoses was also collected. CD-RISC scores were used to stratify participants into lower (<30), medium (30–34), or higher (≥35) resilience categories. Participants’ LASA scores, PSS scores, and self-reported mental health diagnoses were compared among resilience categories. Of the 2,027 eligible participants, 1,954 met the study inclusion criteria as currently employed corporate-sponsored executive or business professionals (self-designated) who completed the CD-RISC survey. Most participants (62.5%) were aged 40 to 59 years. The majority were male (78.3%), white (95.3%), educated (86.2%), and in a committed relationship (89.7%). Among participants, 41.7% reported higher resilience, 34.3% had medium resilience, and 24.0% had lower resilience. The quality of life and overall LASA scores were positively associated with higher resilience (P < .001). PSS scores and self-reported mental health diagnoses were negatively associated with higher resilience (P < .001). These associations remained significant after adjusting for patient characteristics. In this cross-sectional survey of a large cohort of corporative executives, the lower-resilience cohort had a 4-fold higher prevalence of depression and an almost 3-fold higher prevalence of anxiety compared with the higher-resilience cohort. High resilience was positively associated with well-being and negatively associated with perceived stress. Our findings suggest that higher resilience in the executive workplace environment is associated with better mental health, reduced stress, and greater well-being.

The constantly changing landscape regarding menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has been challenging for providers caring for menopausal women. After a decade of fear and uncertainty regarding MHT, reanalysis of the Women's Health Initiative data and the results of recent studies have provided some clarity regarding the balance of risks and benefits of systemic MHT. Age and years since menopause are now known to be important variables affecting the benefit-risk profile. For symptomatic menopausal women who are under 60 years of age or within 10 years of menopause, the benefits of MHT generally outweigh the risks. Systemic MHT initiated early in menopause appears to slow the progression of atherosclerotic disease, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. During this window of opportunity, MHT might also provide protection against cognitive decline. In older women and women more than 10 years past menopause, the risk-benefit balance of MHT is less favorable, particularly with regard to cardiovascular risk and cognitive impairment. For women entering menopause prematurely (<40 years), MHT ameliorates the risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. Nonoral administration of estrogen offers advantages due to the lack of first-pass hepatic metabolism, which in turn avoids the increased hepatic synthesis of clotting proteins, C-reactive protein, triglycerides, and sex hormone-binding globulin. The duration of combined MHT use is ideally limited to less than 5 years because of the known increase in breast cancer risk after 3–5 years of use. Limitations to use of estrogen only MHT are less clear, since breast cancer risk does not appear to increase with use of estrogen alone. For women under the age of 60 years, or within 10 years of onset of natural menopause, MHT for the treatment of bothersome menopausal symptoms poses low risk and is an acceptable option, particularly when nonhormonal management approaches fail.

Purpose: Midlife women frequently experience stress and menopausal symptoms. Mindfulness is thought to mitigate stress by avoiding emotional reactivity and ruminative thinking. We sought to assess the association of mindfulness and stress on menopausal symptoms among midlife women. Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, women aged 40–65 years completed questionnaires, including the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS), the Perceived Stress Scale-4 (PSS-4), and the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). Linear regression was used to assess the impact of mindfulness and stress on menopausal symptoms with use of univariate and multivariable analyses, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results: In this cohort of 1744 midlife women, higher mindfulness (MAAS) and lower stress (PSS-4) scores correlated independently with lower menopausal symptom (MRS) scores. On multivariable analysis, a significant interaction effect was observed between the MAAS and PSS-4 on the MRS, such that with higher PSS-4 scores, the magnitude of association between the MAAS and lower MRS scores was larger. Conclusion: Among midlife women, higher mindfulness and lower stress correlated with lower menopausal symptom scores independently. Among women experiencing more stress, the magnitude of association between mindfulness and lower menopausal symptom scores was greater, largely driven by psychological subdomain scores. Mindfulness may mitigate menopausal symptoms among midlife women.

Objective: Understanding gender differences in self-perception of health (SPH) and self-efficacy can inform the design of tailored programs to improve health behaviors. We aimed to assess gender-specific differences in SPH and self-efficacy for maintaining wellness habits at a work-place wellness center. Methods: A workplace wellness center member survey was conducted in 2016. Information about SPH and self-efficacy to maintain wellness habits was assessed. Data were analyzed to assess gender differences in SPH and self-efficacy. Results: The survey was completed by 2784 members (mean age, 49.2 years; 68.2% women). SPH was similar between genders despite more men reporting health problems such as hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, and cigarette smoking. Women had higher self-efficacy about maintaining healthy diet, but the difference was not clinically meaningful. Women had lower self-efficacy in their ability to maintain physical activity. Conclusions: In this large cohort of worksite wellness center members, men and women had similar self-perception of health despite higher disease burden among men. Women had lower self-efficacy in their ability to maintain physical activity level but similar self-efficacy for maintaining healthy diet. These differences may inform the design of tailored wellness programs to meet the needs of both genders.

Bioidentical hormones are compounds that have exactly the same chemical and molecular structure as endogenous human hormones. In contrast, nonbioidentical, or synthetic, hormones are structurally dissimilar from endogenous hormones. Although available for years, bioidentical compounded hormone therapy (BCHT) has gained popularity in the United States only recently. This popularity has paralleled women9s rising fears of conventional hormone therapy, especially since the publication of the Women9s Health Initiative clinical trials. Although BCHT offers advantages, it is not the panacea of hormone therapy. The claims that BCHT lowers the risk of breast cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, or thromboembolism are not supported by scientific research. The goal of this review is to present an overview of the available research evidence on BCHT, dispel myths about the use of compounded hormones, and provide helpful tips to answer commonly asked questions about BCHT.