Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Longitudinal Study of Job Strain and Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From a Three-Year Follow-up

Schnall, Peter L., Schwartz, Joseph E., Landsbergis, Paul A., Warren, Katherine, Pickering, Thomas G.·1998·Psychosomatic Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the hypothesis that exposure to "job strain" is related to increased ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). METHOD: Participants were 195 men who wore an ABP monitor for 24 hours on two occasions 3 years apart. Job strain status, evaluated at each assessment, was used to identify four groups: those not having job strain at either assessment (N = 138), those having job strain at both times (N = 15), and two crossover groups. Regression analysis was used to examine the cross-sectional associations of ABP with job strain, controlling for other known risk factors. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine the association of ABP change with the category of job strain change. RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis of the Time 2 data yielded almost identical, highly significant effects of job strain on ABP as was shown in our previously published Time 1 analysis. Those in high strain jobs at both times had systolic/diastolic ABPs at work and at home that were, on average, 11/7 mm Hg higher than those with no job strain at both times; the crossover groups had intermediate levels of ABP. The longitudinal analysis showed that those with a high strain job at Time 1, but not at Time 2, had a significant decrease in work and home ABP of approximately 5/3 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: The previously reported cross-sectional association between job strain and ABP was replicated at follow-up. The group repeatedly exposed to job strain had higher levels of ABP at Time 2 than either crossover group. Furthermore, change in job strain status partially predicted change in ABP. These results provide new evidence supporting the hypothesis that job strain is an occupational risk factor in the etiology of essential hypertension.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00006842-199811000-00007

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Schnall, P. L., Schwartz, J. E., Landsbergis, P. A., Warren, K., & Pickering, T. G.
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
1998
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
697-706
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028331016
Cited by
309
References
0
FWCI
33.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Longitudinal Study of Job Strain and Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From a Three-Year Follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00006842-199811000-00007
The paper
Schnall, P. L., Schwartz, J. E., Landsbergis, P. A., Warren, K., & Pickering, T. G. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of Job Strain and Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From a Three-Year Follow-up. Psychosomatic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199811000-00007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.