Psychosocial work environment and ambulatory blood pressure: independent and combined effect of demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two main theoretical models have been used to assess the impact of psychosocial work factors on blood pressure (BP): the demand-control model (DC) and the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model. Little is known about their independent and combined effect. OBJECTIVE: To examine the independent and combined effect of the DC and ERI models on ambulatory BP (ABP). METHOD: Data were collected three times over 7 years from 3395 white-collar women and men using a repeated cross-sectional design. On each occasion, psychosocial work factors were measured using validated scales. ABP was measured every 15 min during a working day. Systolic and diastolic ABP means were examined in relation to contemporaneous and past exposure. Both models were mutually adjusted. A combined exposure variable was computed. RESULTS: In men, high strain, and active, passive and ERI exposure were associated with ABP using contemporaneous exposure. However, the high strain/ABP association was not significant after adjustment for ERI. In women, no association was found with the DC model, while women exposed to ERI had higher ABP. Use of past exposure showed a stronger association between ABP and active exposure in men, while ERI associations were attenuated. Combined exposure to active jobs and to ERI was associated with ABP in both genders. CONCLUSIONS: In men, associations with the DC model were mixed. Associations between high job strain and ABP were not independent of ERI exposure while both DC intermediate groups were independently associated with ABP. In women, no association was found with the DC model. ERI exposure was independently associated with ABP using contemporaneous exposure, but not using past exposure. Combined active and ERI exposure was also associated with ABP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".