Contribution of modifiable risk factors to social inequalities in type 2 diabetes: prospective Whitehall II cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of modifiable risk factors to social inequalities in the incidence of type 2 diabetes when these factors are measured at study baseline or repeatedly over follow-up and when long term exposure is accounted for. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with risk factors (health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity), body mass index, and biological risk markers (systolic blood pressure, triglycerides and high density lipoprotein cholesterol)) measured four times and diabetes status assessed seven times between 1991-93 and 2007-09. SETTING: Civil service departments in London (Whitehall II study). PARTICIPANTS: 7237 adults without diabetes (mean age 49.4 years; 2196 women). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of type 2 diabetes and contribution of risk factors to its association with socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 818 incident cases of diabetes were identified. Participants in the lowest occupational category had a 1.86-fold (hazard ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 2.32) greater risk of developing diabetes relative to those in the highest occupational category. Health behaviours and body mass index explained 33% (-1% to 78%) of this socioeconomic differential when risk factors were assessed at study baseline (attenuation of hazard ratio from 1.86 to 1.51), 36% (22% to 66%) when they were assessed repeatedly over the follow-up (attenuated hazard ratio 1.48), and 45% (28% to 75%) when long term exposure over the follow-up was accounted for (attenuated hazard ratio 1.41). With additional adjustment for biological risk markers, a total of 53% (29% to 88%) of the socioeconomic differential was explained (attenuated hazard ratio 1.35, 1.05 to 1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors such as health behaviours and obesity, when measured repeatedly over time, explain almost half of the social inequalities in incidence of type 2 diabetes. This is more than was seen in previous studies based on single measurement of risk factors.

Work stress, smoking status and smoking intensity: an observational study of 46 190 employees

Study objective: To examine the relationship between work stress, as indicated by the job strain model and the effort-reward imbalance model, and smoking. Setting: Ten municipalities and 21 hospitals in Finland. Design and Participants: Binary logistic regression models for the prevalence of smoking were related to survey responses of 37 309 female and 8881 male Finnish public sector employees aged 17-65. Separate multinomial logistic regression models were calculated for smoking intensity for 8130 smokers. In addition, binary logistic regression models for ex-smoking were fitted among 16 277 former and current smokers. In all analyses, adjustments were made for age, basic education, occupational status, type of employment and marital status. Main results: Respondents with high effort-reward imbalance or lower rewards were more likely to be smokers. Among smokers, an increased likelihood of higher intensity of smoking was associated with higher job strain and higher effort-reward imbalance and their components such as low job control and low rewards. Smoking intensity was also higher in active jobs in women, in passive jobs and among employees with low effort expenditure. Among former and current smokers, high job strain, high effort-reward imbalance and high job demands were associated with a higher likelihood of being a current smoker. Lower effort was associated with a higher likelihood of ex-smoking. Conclusions: This evidence suggests an association between work stress and smoking and implies that smoking cessation programs may benefit from the taking into account the modification of stressful features of work environment. Key words: effort-reward imbalance; job strain; smoking. Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SES, socioeconomic status

Effort-reward imbalance and sedentary lifestyle: an observational study in a large occupational cohort

Objectives: To investigate the association between effort-reward imbalance (ERI) at work and sedentary lifestyle. Methods: Cross-sectional data from the ongoing Finnish Public Sector Study related to 30 433 women and 7718 men aged 17-64 were used (n = 35 918 after exclusion of participants with missing values in covariates). From the responses to a questionnaire, an aggregated mean score for ERI in a work unit was assigned to each participant. The outcome was sedentary lifestyle defined as <2.00 metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours/day. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used as an analysis method to include both individual and work unit level predictors in the models. Adjustments were made for age, marital status, occupational status, job contract, smoking, and heavy drinking. Results: Twenty five percent of women and 27% of men had a sedentary lifestyle. High individual level ERI was associated with a higher likelihood of sedentary lifestyle both among women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16) and men (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33). These associations were not explained by relevant confounders and they were also independent of work unit level job strain measured as a ratio of job demands and control. Conclusions: A mismatch between high occupational effort spent and low reward received in turn seems to be associated with an elevated risk of sedentary lifestyle, although this association is relatively weak.

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.

Akateemikko Mika Waltari 30/10 1970

Kirje 30.10.1970

Akateemikko Mika Waltari 28/11 1964

Kirje 28.11.1964

Akateemikko Mika Waltari 7/12 1962

Kirje 7.12.1962

Panu Rajalan kirja Mika Waltarista on kohteensa kaltainen [Elektroninen aineisto]

Kirjallisuusarvostelu