Adverse psychosocial work factors, blood pressure and hypertension incidence: repeated exposure in a 5-year prospective cohort study
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 (DC) model and the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model. Previous studies have mostly used a single time point exposure to examine this association. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of repeated job strain and ERI exposure on (1) ambulatory BP (ABP) evolution over 5 years and (2) hypertension incidence over 5 years. METHOD: The design is a prospective cohort study. The study population was composed of 1394 white-collar workers (568 men and 826 women). They were assessed three times during a 5-year period (years 1, 3 and 5). At each time, psychosocial work factors were measured using validated scales and ABP was measured every 15 min during a working day. RESULTS: Men who were chronically exposed over 5 years to an active job had a higher cumulative incidence of hypertension (RR=2.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.09), compared with never-exposed men. In women, ERI exposure onset was associated with higher increases in systolic ABP (+2.5 mm Hg). No association was found between chronic high-strain exposure and ABP. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic exposure to active jobs in men led to a higher risk of hypertension and ERI exposure onset in women led to increases in systolic ABP. Results from the present study highlight the need to consider chronic exposure in order to fully capture the deleterious effect of adverse psychosocial work stressors on cardiovascular health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".