The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Longitudinal Study of Job Strain and Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From a Three-Year Follow-up
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Rozanski, A., Blumenthal, J. A., & Kaplan, J. (1999) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.99.16.2192 · Cited by 2,846
Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1129688 · Cited by 1,256
Review on Psychological Stress Detection Using Biosignals
Giannakakis, G., Grigoriadis, D., Giannakaki, K., Simantiraki, O., Roniotis, A., & Tsiknakis, M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2019.2927337 · Cited by 764
Brosschot, J. F., Van Dijk, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2007) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.07.016 · Cited by 474
Schwartz, A. R., Gerin, W., Davidson, K. W., Pickering, T. G., Brosschot, J. F., Thayer, J. F., Christenfeld, N., & Linden, W. (2003) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000046075.79922.61 · Cited by 383
Self-citation
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.