O6C.4 The relationship between the demand-control model and incident cardiovascular disease in ontario canada. A linked analysis of 12,358 workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dimensions of the demand-control psychosocial work environment model have previously been linked increased incidence of both diabetes and hypertension in Canada. However, few investigations in Canada have examined the relationship between the demand-control model and cardiovascular disease. We linked Ontario respondents to the 2000, 2002 and 2003 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey, to administrative health care and hospitalisation databases to identify incident cases of cardiovascular disease over a 15 years follow-up period. Our sample included employed labour market respondents, aged 35 and older, working 15 or more hours per week, with information on the psychosocial work environment, and who were free of heart disease at baseline (n=12,358). The demand-control model was defined based on median splits (active, passive, low strain and high strain), although models using the mid-population approach and the ratio of control to demands were also examined. Over the study period 507 incident cardiovascular events occurred. The incidence was higher among men (5.5%) compared to women (2.6%). No statistically significant differences were observed across the four different demand-control categories in the full sample. In stratified analysis, passive work environments (low control and low demands) and low-strain environments (high control and low demands) were associated with increased risk of heart disease (HR=1.94, 95% CI 0.99–3.81; HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.01–4.17), compared to active work (high demands and high control) among women. No similar relationship was observed among men. Among a representative sample of Ontario workers, high strain work environments were not associated with increased risk of heart disease. Passive and low strain environments (both characterised by low psychological demands) were associated with increased risk of heart disease among women, but not men. Implications of these findings for assessment of the psychosocial work environment in Canada will be discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".