Cardiovascular health outcomes of mobbing at work: results of the population-based, five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg health study
Cardiovascular health outcomes of mobbing at work: results of the population-based, five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg health study
复制标题
工作场所聚众闹事对心血管健康的影响：古腾堡健康研究基于人群的五年随访结果
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
A. Seidler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Romero Starke;J. Hegewald;A. Schulz;S. Garthus;M. Nübling;P. Wild;N. Arnold;U. Latza;S. Jankowiak;F. Liebers;K. Rossnagel;Merle Riechmann;S. Letzel;M. Beutel;N. Pfeiffer;K. Lackner;T. Münzel;A. Seidler
本研究的目的是确定古滕贝格健康研究中两种聚众工具测量的工作场所聚众是否增加了心血管疾病（CVD）的风险。方法在这项前瞻性研究中，我们检查了年龄小于65岁的工作人员在基线和5年的随访中，使用一个单一的项目和5个项目的工具的存在暴民。我们使用多变量模型来研究聚众与CVD事件、高血压和动脉硬度变化之间的相关性，并进一步按性别对模型进行分层。结果在调整混杂因素后，聚众工人发生CVD的危险性高于未聚众工人（单项HR = 1.28，95%CI 0.73-2.24; 5项HR = 1.57，95%CI 0.96-2.54）。使用5项工具，报告聚众斗殴的男性发生CVD的风险较高（HR = 1.77，95% CI 1.01-3.09），而女性未观察到相关性（HR = 1.05，95% CI 0.38-2.91）。在单项工具中，男性和女性之间的风险没有差异。聚众斗殴与高血压和动脉硬化之间没有相关性。结论：我们的研究结果表明，当使用整个研究人群时，基线时被包围的人发生CVD的风险增加。在使用五项工具时，男性和女性之间的风险差异可能是工具本身造成的。尽管如此，必须检测或预防工作场所聚众斗殴，如果存在，应采取干预措施阻止其发生，以尽量减少其对CVD的不利影响。
Background The aim of this study was to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) resulting from workplace mobbing measured with two mobbing instruments in the Gutenberg Health Study. Methods In this prospective study, we examined working persons younger than 65 years for the presence of mobbing at baseline and at a 5-year follow-up using a single-item and a 5-item instrument. We used multivariate models to investigate the association between mobbing and incident CVD, hypertension, and change in arterial stiffness and further stratified the models by sex. Results After adjustment for confounders, mobbed workers appeared to have a higher risk of incident CVD than those not mobbed (single-item HR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.73–2.24; 5-item HR = 1.57, 95% CI 0.96–2.54). With the 5-item instrument, men who reported mobbing had a higher risk of incident CVD (HR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.01–3.09), while no association was observed for women (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.38–2.91). There was no difference in risks between men and women with the single-item instrument. No association between mobbing and incident hypertension and arterial stiffness was seen. Conclusions Our results show an indication of an increased risk of incident CVD for those mobbed at baseline when using the whole study population. Differences in risks between men and women when using the five-item instrument may be due to the instrument itself. Still, it is essential to detect or prevent workplace mobbing, and if present, to apply an intervention to halt it in order to minimize its adverse effects on CVD.