Xavier Trudel1,2, Chantal Brisson3, Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet4, Alain Milot5. 1. Social and Preventive Medicine Department, Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. xavier.trudel@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca. 2. Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, 1050 Chemin Ste-Foy, Quebec, Quebec, G1S 4L8, Canada. xavier.trudel@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca. 3. Social and Preventive Medicine Department, Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. 4. Institute for Work and Health, 481 University Ave, Suite 800, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Psychosocial stressors at work from the demand-latitude and effort-reward imbalance models are adverse exposures affecting about 20-25% of workers in industrialized countries. This review aims to summarize evidence on the effect of these stressors on blood pressure (BP). RECENT FINDINGS: Three systematic reviews have recently documented the effect of these psychosocial stressors at work on BP. Among exposed workers, statistically significant BP increases ranging from 1.5 to 11 mmHg have been observed in prospective studies using ambulatory BP (ABP). Recent studies using ABP have shown a deleterious effect of these psychosocial stressors at work on masked hypertension as well as on blood pressure control in pharmacologically treated patients. Evidence on the effect of these psychosocial stressors on BP supports the relevance to tackle these upstream factors for primary prevention and to reduce the burden of poor BP control. There is a need for increased public health and clinical awareness of the occupational etiology of high BP, hypertension, and poor BP control.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Psychosocial stressors at work from the demand-latitude and effort-reward imbalance models are adverse exposures affecting about 20-25% of workers in industrialized countries. This review aims to summarize evidence on the effect of these stressors on blood pressure (BP). RECENT FINDINGS: Three systematic reviews have recently documented the effect of these psychosocial stressors at work on BP. Among exposed workers, statistically significant BP increases ranging from 1.5 to 11 mmHg have been observed in prospective studies using ambulatory BP (ABP). Recent studies using ABP have shown a deleterious effect of these psychosocial stressors at work on masked hypertension as well as on blood pressure control in pharmacologically treated patients. Evidence on the effect of these psychosocial stressors on BP supports the relevance to tackle these upstream factors for primary prevention and to reduce the burden of poor BP control. There is a need for increased public health and clinical awareness of the occupational etiology of high BP, hypertension, and poor BP control.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ambulatory blood pressure; Effort-reward imbalance; Hypertension control; Job strain; Masked hypertension; Psychosocial stressors at work
Authors: Matt Egan; Clare Bambra; Sian Thomas; Mark Petticrew; Margaret Whitehead; Hilary Thomson Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Clare Bambra; Matt Egan; Sian Thomas; Mark Petticrew; Margaret Whitehead Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redon; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad; Josep Redon; Anna Dominiczak; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Peter M Nilsson; Michel Burnier; Margus Viigimaa; Ettore Ambrosioni; Mark Caufield; Antonio Coca; Michael Hecht Olsen; Roland E Schmieder; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Thierry C Gillebert; Michal Tendera; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Stefan D Anker; Johann Bauersachs; Jana Brguljan Hitij; Mark Caulfield; Marc De Buyzere; Sabina De Geest; Geneviève Anne Derumeaux; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Christian Funck-Brentano; Vjekoslav Gerc; Giuseppe Germano; Stephan Gielen; Herman Haller; Arno W Hoes; Jens Jordan; Thomas Kahan; Michel Komajda; Dragan Lovic; Heiko Mahrholdt; Michael Hecht Olsen; Jan Ostergren; Gianfranco Parati; Joep Perk; Jorge Polonia; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Lars Rydén; Yuriy Sirenko; Alice Stanton; Harry Struijker-Boudier; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Massimo Volpe; David A Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983