[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/199888168-74_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease

Author

Listed:
  • Bosma, H.
  • Peter, R.
  • Siegrist, J.
  • Marmot, M.
Abstract
Objectives. This study examined the association between two alternative job stress models-the effort-reward imbalance model and the job strain model- and the risk of coronary heart disease among male and female British civil servants. Methods. The logistic regression analyses were based on a prospective cohort study (Whitehall II study) comprising 6895 men and 3413 women aged 35 to 55 years. Baseline measures of both job stress models were related to new reports of coronary heart disease over a mean 5.3 years of follow-up. Results. The imbalance between personal efforts (competitiveness, work-related overcommitment, and hostility) and rewards (poor promotion prospects and a blocked career) was associated with a 2.15-fold higher risk of new coronary heart disease. Job strain and high job demands were not related to coronary heart disease; however, low job control was strongly associated with new disease. The odds ratios for low job control were 2.38 and 1.56 for self-reported and externally assessed job control, respectively. Work characteristics were simultaneously adjusted and controlled for employment grade level, negative affectivity, and coronary risk factors. Conclusions. This is apparently the first report showing independent effects of components of two alternative job stress models-the effort-reward imbalance model and the job strain model (job control only)-on coronary heart disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Bosma, H. & Peter, R. & Siegrist, J. & Marmot, M., 1998. "Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(1), pages 68-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1998:88:1:68-74_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1998:88:1:68-74_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.