Double Exposure to Adverse Psychosocial Work Factors and High Family Responsibilities as Related to Ambulatory Blood Pressure at Work: A 5-Year Prospective Study in Women With White-Collar Jobs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence shows that psychosocial work factors of the demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models may contribute to increase blood pressure (BP). Women are more likely to be exposed to these psychosocial factors than men. Moreover, women spend twice as much time per week performing family responsibilities than men. This study aimed to evaluate the longitudinal association of the double exposure to psychosocial work factors and high family responsibilities in women with BP for a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: At baseline, the study sample was composed of 1215 working women. Psychosocial work factors were measured using validated scales. Family responsibilities were measured using items related to "the number of children and their age" and "housework and children care." Ambulatory BP measures were taken every 15 minutes during a working day. Associations between psychosocial measures and BP were examined using analyses of covariance. RESULTS: Women with a double exposure to effort-reward imbalance and high family responsibilities had significantly higher BP means than women not exposed to these factors at baseline (diastolic: +2.75 mm Hg), at 3-year follow-up (systolic: +2.22 mm Hg and diastolic: +2.55 mm Hg), and at 5-year follow-up (systolic: +2.94 mm Hg and diastolic: + 3.10 mm Hg). No adverse effect on BP was observed for the double exposure to the psychosocial work factors of the demand-control model and high family responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: A double exposure to effort-reward imbalance at work and high family responsibilities might contribute to elevated ambulatory BP at work among women. BP elevations related to this double exposure may persist for several years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".