| 1. |
- Descatha, Alexis, et al.
(författare)
-
The effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke : A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 142
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data and prior studies suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause stroke. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and >= 55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).Data sources: A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide to systematic reviews as an organizing framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (>= 15 years) individuals in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and >= 55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (prevalence, incidence or mortality).Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project.Results: Twenty-two studies (20 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 839,680 participants (364,616 females) in eight countries from three WHO regions (Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (13 studies), self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies), direct diagnosis by a physician (1 study) or during a medical interview (1 study). The outcome was defined as an incident non-fatal stroke event in nine studies (7 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies), incident fatal stroke event in one cohort study and incident non-fatal or fatal (mixed) event in 12 studies (all cohort studies). Cohort studies were judged to have a relatively low risk of bias; therefore, we prioritized evidence from these studies, but synthesised evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. stroke incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). Eligible studies were found on the effects of long working hours on stroke incidence and mortality, but not prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were uncertain about the effect on incidence of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14, 18 studies, 277,202 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence). There may have been an increased risk for acquiring stroke when working 49-54 h/week compared with 35-40 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.28, 17 studies, 275,181participants, I-2 0%, p 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working >= 55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring stroke, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61, 7 studies, 162,644 participants, I-2 3%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.12, 12 studies, 265,937 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence), 49-54 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, 11 studies, 256,129 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 55 h/week (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, 10 studies, 664,647 participants, I-2 20%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region, age, sex, socioeconomic status and type of stroke. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus mixed) except for the comparison working >= 55 h/week versus 35-40 h/week for stroke incidence (p for subgroup differences: 0.05), risk of bias (high/probably high ratings in any domain versus low/probably low in all domains), effect estimate measures (risk versus hazard versus odds ratios) and comparator (exact versus approximate definition).Conclusions: We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as inadequate evidence for harmfulness for all exposure categories for stroke prevalence and mortality and for exposure to 41-48 h/week for stroke incidence. Evidence on exposure to 48-54 h/week and >= 55 h/week was judged as limited evidence for harmfulness and sufficient evidence for harmfulness for stroke incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48-54 and >= 55 h/week appears evidencebased, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dragano, Nico, et al.
(författare)
-
Effort-Reward Imbalance at Work and Incident Coronary Heart Disease A Multicohort Study of 90,164 Individuals
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Epidemiology. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 1044-3983 .- 1531-5487. ; 28:4, s. 619-626
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Epidemiologic evidence for work stress as a risk factor for coronary heart disease is mostly based on a single measure of stressful work known as job strain, a combination of high demands and low job control. We examined whether a complementary stress measure that assesses an imbalance between efforts spent at work and rewards received predicted coronary heart disease.Methods: This multicohort study (the "IPD-Work" consortium) was based on harmonized individual-level data from 11 European prospective cohort studies. Stressful work in 90,164 men and women without coronary heart disease at baseline was assessed by validated effort-reward imbalance and job strain questionnaires. We defined incident coronary heart disease as the first nonfatal myocardial infarction or coronary death. Study-specific estimates were pooled by random effects meta-analysis.Results: At baseline, 31.7% of study members reported effort-reward imbalance at work and 15.9% reported job strain. During a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, 1,078 coronary events were recorded. After adjustment for potential confounders, a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.35) was observed for effort-reward imbalance compared with no imbalance. The hazard ratio was 1.16 (1.01-1.34) for having either effort-reward imbalance or job strain and 1.41 (1.12-1.76) for having both these stressors compared to having neither effort-reward imbalance nor job strain.Conclusions: Individuals with effort-reward imbalance at work have an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and this appears to be independent of job strain experienced. These findings support expanding focus beyond just job strain in future research on work stress.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Fransson, Eleonor, 1971-, et al.
(författare)
-
Job strain as a risk factor for leisure-time physical inactivity : an individual-participant meta-analysis of up to 170,000 men and women
- 2012
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Epidemiology. - Cary : Oxford University Press. - 0002-9262 .- 1476-6256. ; 176:12, s. 1078-1089
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Unfavorable work characteristics, such as low job control and too high or too low job demands, have been suggested to increase the likelihood of physical inactivity during leisure time, but this has not been verified in large-scale studies. The authors combined individual-level data from 14 European cohort studies (baseline years from 19851988 to 20062008) to examine the association between unfavorable work characteristics and leisure-time physical inactivity in a total of 170,162 employees (50 women; mean age, 43.5 years). Of these employees, 56,735 were reexamined after 29 years. In cross-sectional analyses, the odds for physical inactivity were 26 higher (odds ratio 1.26, 95 confidence interval: 1.15, 1.38) for employees with high-strain jobs (low control/high demands) and 21 higher (odds ratio 1.21, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.31) for those with passive jobs (low control/low demands) compared with employees in low-strain jobs (high control/low demands). In prospective analyses restricted to physically active participants, the odds of becoming physically inactive during follow-up were 21 and 20 higher for those with high-strain (odds ratio 1.21, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.32) and passive (odds ratio 1.20, 95 confidence interval: 1.11, 1.30) jobs at baseline. These data suggest that unfavorable work characteristics may have a spillover effect on leisure-time physical activity.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Heikkila, Katriina, et al.
(författare)
-
Job Strain and Alcohol Intake : A Collaborative Meta-Analysis of Individual-Participant Data from 140 000 Men and Women
- 2012
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 7:7, s. Art. no. e40101-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The relationship between work-related stress and alcohol intake is uncertain. In order to add to the thus far inconsistent evidence from relatively small studies, we conducted individual-participant meta-analyses of the association between work-related stress (operationalised as self-reported job strain) and alcohol intake. Methodology and Principal Findings: We analysed cross-sectional data from 12 European studies (n = 142 140) and longitudinal data from four studies (n = 48 646). Job strain and alcohol intake were self-reported. Job strain was analysed as a binary variable (strain vs. no strain). Alcohol intake was harmonised into the following categories: none, moderate (women: 1-14, men: 1-21 drinks/week), intermediate (women: 15-20, men: 22-27 drinks/week) and heavy (women: > 20, men: > 27 drinks/week). Cross-sectional associations were modelled using logistic regression and the results pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Longitudinal associations were examined using mixed effects logistic and modified Poisson regression. Compared to moderate drinkers, non-drinkers and (random effects odds ratio (OR): 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.14) and heavy drinkers (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26) had higher odds of job strain. Intermediate drinkers, on the other hand, had lower odds of job strain (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.99). We found no clear evidence for longitudinal associations between job strain and alcohol intake. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that compared to moderate drinkers, non-drinkers and heavy drinkers are more likely and intermediate drinkers less likely to report work-related stress.
|
|
| 7. |
- Heikkila, Katriina, et al.
(författare)
-
Job Strain and Tobacco Smoking : An Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis of 166 130 Adults in 15 European Studies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 7:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Tobacco smoking is a major contributor to the public health burden and healthcare costs worldwide, but the determinants of smoking behaviours are poorly understood. We conducted a large individual-participant meta-analysis to examine the extent to which work-related stress, operationalised as job strain, is associated with tobacco smoking in working adults. Methodology and Principal Findings: We analysed cross-sectional data from 15 European studies comprising 166 130 participants. Longitudinal data from six studies were used. Job strain and smoking were self-reported. Smoking was harmonised into three categories never, ex- and current. We modelled the cross-sectional associations using logistic regression and the results pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to examine longitudinal associations. Of the 166 130 participants, 17% reported job strain, 42% were never smokers, 33% ex-smokers and 25% current smokers. In the analyses of the cross-sectional data, current smokers had higher odds of job strain than never-smokers (age, sex and socioeconomic position-adjusted odds ratio: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.18). Current smokers with job strain smoked, on average, three cigarettes per week more than current smokers without job strain. In the analyses of longitudinal data (1 to 9 years of follow-up), there was no clear evidence for longitudinal associations between job strain and taking up or quitting smoking. Conclusions: Our findings show that smokers are slightly more likely than non-smokers to report work-related stress. In addition, smokers who reported work stress smoked, on average, slightly more cigarettes than stress-free smokers.
|
|
| 8. |
- Kivimäki, Mika, et al.
(författare)
-
Associations of job strain and lifestyle risk factors with risk of coronary artery disease : a meta-analysis of individual participant data
- 2013
-
Ingår i: CMJA. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Onlineutg. Med tittel. - : CMA Joule Inc.. - 0820-3946 .- 1488-2329. ; 185:9, s. 763-769
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It is unclear whether a healthy lifestyle mitigates the adverse effects of job strain on coronary artery disease. We examined the associations of job strain and lifestyle risk factors with the risk of coronary artery disease.Methods: We pooled individual-level data from 7 cohort studies comprising 102 128 men and women who were free of existing coronary artery disease at baseline (1985–2000). Questionnaires were used to measure job strain (yes v. no) and 4 lifestyle risk factors: current smoking, physical inactivity, heavy drinking and obesity. We grouped participants into 3 lifestyle categories: healthy (no lifestyle risk factors), moderately unhealthy (1 risk factor) and unhealthy (2–4 risk factors). The primary outcome was incident coronary artery disease (defined as first nonfatal myocardial infarction or cardiac-related death).Results: There were 1086 incident events in 743 948 person-years at risk during a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. The risk of coronary artery disease among people who had an unhealthy lifestyle compared with those who had a healthy lifestyle (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18–2.98; population attributable risk 26.4%) was higher than the risk among participants who had job strain compared with those who had no job strain (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06–1.47; population attributable risk 3.8%). The 10-year incidence of coronary artery disease among participants with job strain and a healthy lifestyle (14.7 per 1000) was 53% lower than the incidence among those with job strain and an unhealthy lifestyle (31.2 per 1000).Interpretation: The risk of coronary artery disease was highest among participants who reported job strain and an unhealthy lifestyle; those with job strain and a healthy lifestyle had half the rate of disease. A healthy lifestyle may substantially reduce disease risk among people with job strain.
|
|
| 9. |
- Kivimäki, Mika, et al.
(författare)
-
Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke : a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : The Lancet Publishing Group. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 386:10005, s. 1739-1746
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Long working hours might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but prospective evidence is scarce, imprecise, and mostly limited to coronary heart disease. We aimed to assess long working hours as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease and stroke. Methods We identified published studies through a systematic review of PubMed and Embase from inception to Aug 20, 2014. We obtained unpublished data for 20 cohort studies from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations (IPD-Work) Consortium and open-access data archives. We used cumulative random-effects meta-analysis to combine effect estimates from published and unpublished data. Findings We included 25 studies from 24 cohorts in Europe, the USA, and Australia. The meta-analysis of coronary heart disease comprised data for 603 838 men and women who were free from coronary heart disease at baseline; the meta-analysis of stroke comprised data for 528 908 men and women who were free from stroke at baseline. Follow-up for coronary heart disease was 5.1 million person-years (mean 8.5 years), in which 4768 events were recorded, and for stroke was 3.8 million person-years (mean 7.2 years), in which 1722 events were recorded. In cumulative meta-analysis adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, compared with standard hours (35-40 h per week), working long hours (>= 55 h per week) was associated with an increase in risk of incident coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26; p=0.02) and incident stroke (1.33, 1.11-1.61; p=0.002). The excess risk of stroke remained unchanged in analyses that addressed reverse causation, multivariable adjustments for other risk factors, and different methods of stroke ascertainment (range of RR estimates 1.30-1.42). We recorded a dose-response association for stroke, with RR estimates of 1.10 (95% CI 0.94-1.28; p=0.24) for 41-48 working hours, 1.27 (1.03-1.56; p=0.03) for 49-54 working hours, and 1.33 (1.11-1.61; p=0.002) for 55 working hours or more per week compared with standard working hours (p(trend)<0.0001). Interpretation Employees who work long hours have a higher risk of stroke than those working standard hours; the association with coronary heart disease is weaker. These findings suggest that more attention should be paid to the management of vascular risk factors in individuals who work long hours.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kivimäki, Mika, et al.
(författare)
-
Long working hours, socioeconomic status, and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes : a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from 222 120 individuals.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. - 2213-8587 .- 2213-8595. ; 3:1, s. 27-34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Working long hours might have adverse health effects, but whether this is true for all socioeconomic status groups is unclear. In this meta-analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, we investigated the role of long working hours as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.METHODS: We identified four published studies through a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase up to April 30, 2014. Study inclusion criteria were English-language publication; prospective design (cohort study); investigation of the effect of working hours or overtime work; incident diabetes as an outcome; and relative risks, odds ratios, or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, or sufficient information to calculate these estimates. Additionally, we used unpublished individual-level data from 19 cohort studies from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working-Populations Consortium and international open-access data archives. Effect estimates from published and unpublished data from 222 120 men and women from the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis.FINDINGS: During 1·7 million person-years at risk, 4963 individuals developed diabetes (incidence 29 per 10 000 person-years). The minimally adjusted summary risk ratio for long (≥55 h per week) compared with standard working hours (35-40 h) was 1·07 (95% CI 0·89-1·27, difference in incidence three cases per 10 000 person-years) with significant heterogeneity in study-specific estimates (I(2)=53%, p=0·0016). In an analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, the association between long working hours and diabetes was evident in the low socioeconomic status group (risk ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·06-1·57, difference in incidence 13 per 10 000 person-years, I(2)=0%, p=0·4662), but was null in the high socioeconomic status group (1·00, 95% CI 0·80-1·25, incidence difference zero per 10 000 person-years, I(2)=15%, p=0·2464). The association in the low socioeconomic status group was robust to adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and physical activity, and remained after exclusion of shift workers.INTERPRETATION: In this meta-analysis, the link between longer working hours and type 2 diabetes was apparent only in individuals in the low socioeconomic status groups.FUNDING: Medical Research Council, European Union New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health research programme, Finnish Work Environment Fund, Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, German Social Accident Insurance, Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Academy of Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands), Economic and Social Research Council, US National Institutes of Health, and British Heart Foundation.
|
|
