Low Social Support at Work and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in a Repeated Cross-sectional Study of White-Collar Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies on the effect of low social support at work on blood pressure showed mixed results. Few previous studies have used ambulatory blood pressure and examined whether the effect of low social support at work vary among men and women. The aim of this study was to examine the association between low social support at work, ambulatory blood pressure means and hypertension prevalence, in a sample of white-collar workers men and women. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional design was used. Data were collected three times during a 5-year period, among 3919 white-collar women and men. At each time, coworker and supervisor social support at work were measured using validated scales. Ambulatory blood pressure was measured every 15 min during a working day. General estimating equations were used. RESULTS: In adjusted models, women exposed to low coworker (+0.6 mmHg) and low supervisor social support at work (+0.7 mmHg) had slightly higher diastolic blood pressure means when compared to unexposed women. In men, those with low coworker social support at work had higher diastolic (+0.7 mmHg) blood pressure while those with low supervisor social support had a higher prevalence of hypertension (prevalence ratio = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04-1.24). CONCLUSIONS: Men with low supervisor social support at work had a higher prevalence of hypertension. Low social support at work was associated with modest increases in diastolic blood pressure among men and women. Workplace prevention strategies aiming to increase social support at work could lead to beneficial effects on worker's 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".