BACKGROUND: A high need for recovery after work can be regarded as a short term adverse effect of working day stressors and the person's inability to cope and recover. Consequently, it might be an intermediate factor between job stressors and cardiovascular disease (CVD). AIM: To investigate, in a longitudinal study, the relation between need for recovery and subsequent CVD. METHODS: Data from the Maastricht Cohort Study of 12 140 workers were used, with 42 incident self reported CVD cases during 32 months of follow up. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to calculate age, gender, smoking status, and educational level adjusted relative risks. RESULTS: The adjusted relative CVD risk for the second compared to the first tertile of the need for recovery score was 1.22 (95% CI: 0.49 to 3.04), and for the third compared to the first tertile was 3.16 (95% CI: 1.34 to 7.48). When need for recovery was entered as continuous score, an adjusted relative risk per SD increase of 1.54 (95% CI: 1.15 to 2.03) was found. Additional adjustment for several work related factors as job demands, did not notably change the observed relation between need for recovery and CVD. Moreover, the increased risk for subjects reporting high job demands (1.38 per SD increase; 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.92) decreased substantially after adjustment for need for recovery. CONCLUSION: The results show that need for recovery is a strong predictor of subsequent cardiovascular disease and might be an intermediate factor between job stressors and cardiovascular disease.
BACKGROUND: A high need for recovery after work can be regarded as a short term adverse effect of working day stressors and the person's inability to cope and recover. Consequently, it might be an intermediate factor between job stressors and cardiovascular disease (CVD). AIM: To investigate, in a longitudinal study, the relation between need for recovery and subsequent CVD. METHODS: Data from the Maastricht Cohort Study of 12 140 workers were used, with 42 incident self reported CVD cases during 32 months of follow up. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to calculate age, gender, smoking status, and educational level adjusted relative risks. RESULTS: The adjusted relative CVD risk for the second compared to the first tertile of the need for recovery score was 1.22 (95% CI: 0.49 to 3.04), and for the third compared to the first tertile was 3.16 (95% CI: 1.34 to 7.48). When need for recovery was entered as continuous score, an adjusted relative risk per SD increase of 1.54 (95% CI: 1.15 to 2.03) was found. Additional adjustment for several work related factors as job demands, did not notably change the observed relation between need for recovery and CVD. Moreover, the increased risk for subjects reporting high job demands (1.38 per SD increase; 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.92) decreased substantially after adjustment for need for recovery. CONCLUSION: The results show that need for recovery is a strong predictor of subsequent cardiovascular disease and might be an intermediate factor between job stressors and cardiovascular disease.
Authors: I J Kant; U Bültmann; K A P Schröer; A J H M Beurskens; L G P M Van Amelsvoort; G M H Swaen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Philippe Kiss; Marc De Meester; André Kruse; Brigitte Chavée; Lutgart Braeckman Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Ruben A Kraaijeveld; Maaike A Huysmans; Marco J M Hoozemans; Allard J Van der Beek; Erwin M Speklé Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Petra Verdonk; Wendela E Hooftman; Marc J P M van Veldhoven; Louise R M Boelens; Lando L J Koppes Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-11-04 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Rune Bang Leistad; Kristian Bernhard Nilsen; Lars Jacob Stovner; Rolf Harald Westgaard; Magne Rø; Trond Sand Journal: J Headache Pain Date: 2008-03-29 Impact factor: 7.277
Authors: Mika Kivimäki; Jenny Head; Jane E Ferrie; Harry Hemingway; Martin J Shipley; Jussi Vahtera; Michael G Marmot Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jennifer K Coffeng; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Saskia F Duijts; Karin I Proper; Willem van Mechelen; Cécile R L Boot Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.295