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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".