Effort-reward imbalance at work and the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors: cross-sectional survey in a sample of 36,127 public sector employees

Background In occupational life, a mismatch between high expenditure of effort and receiving few rewards may promote the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors, however, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute this hypothesis. The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which the dimensions of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model – effort, rewards and ERI – are associated with the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors. Methods Based on data from the Finnish Public Sector Study, cross-sectional analyses were performed for 28,894 women and 7233 men. ERI was conceptualized as a ratio of effort and rewards. To control for individual differences in response styles, such as a personal disposition to answer negatively to questionnaires, occupational and organizational -level ecological ERI scores were constructed in addition to individual-level ERI scores. Risk factors included current smoking, heavy drinking, body mass index ≥25 kg/m2, and physical inactivity. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of having one risk factor, two risk factors, and three or four risk factors. The associations between ERI and single risk factors were explored using binary logistic regression models. Results After adjustment for age, socioeconomic position, marital status, and type of job contract, women and men with high ecological ERI were 40% more likely to have simultaneously ≥3 lifestyle risk factors (vs. 0 risk factors) compared with their counterparts with low ERI. When examined separately, both low ecological effort and low ecological rewards were also associated with an elevated prevalence of risk factor co-occurrence. The results obtained with the individual-level scores were in the same direction. The associations of ecological ERI with single risk factors were generally less marked than the associations with the co-occurrence of risk factors. Conclusion This study suggests that a high ratio of occupational efforts relative to rewards may be associated with an elevated risk of having multiple lifestyle risk factors. However, an unexpected association between low effort and a higher likelihood of risk factor co-occurrence as well as the absence of data on overcommitment (and thereby a lack of full test of the ERI model) warrant caution in regard to the extent to which the entire ERI model is supported by our evidence.

Dipyridamole plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the secondary prevention after TIA or stroke: a meta-analysis by risk

Objectives: Our aim was to study the effect of combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole (A+D) over aspirin alone (ASA) in secondary prevention after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin and to perform subgroup analyses to identify patients that might benefit most from secondary prevention with A+D. Data sources: The previously published meta-analysis of individual patient data was updated with data from ESPRIT (N=2,739); trials without data on the comparison of A+D versus ASA were excluded. Review methods: A meta-analysis was performed using Cox regression, including several subgroup analyses and following baseline risk stratification. Results: A total of 7,612 patients (5 trials) were included in the analyses, 3,800 allocated to A+D and 3,812 to ASA alone. The trial-adjusted hazard ratio for the composite event of vascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.92). Hazard ratios did not differ in subgroup analyses based on age, sex, qualifying event, hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke, ischemic heart disease, aspirin dose, type of vessel disease and dipyridamole formulation, nor across baseline risk strata as assessed with two different risk scores. A+D were also more effective than ASA alone in preventing recurrent stroke, HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 – 0.90). Conclusion: The combination of aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone in patients with TIA or ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin in the secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular events. This superiority was found in all subgroups and was independent of baseline risk. ---------------------------7dc3521430776 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="c14_creators_1_name_family" Halkes