ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2024
Longitudinal associations of effort and reward at work with changes in cognitive function: evidence from a national study of U.S. workers.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of indoor physical environment and psychosocial stress on work performance in a Thai academic setting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effort-reward imbalance at work and health: Review and critical appraisal of three decades of research.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Review
- Rewarding Work and Memory Perceptions: Evidence Among Older Workers in the Health and Retirement Study.Safety and health at work · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Associations of Job Demand-Control Characteristics With Objective and Subjective Cognitive Outcomes in Older Workers: The Health and Retirement Study.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to examine longitudinal associations of workplace effort and reward with changes in cognitive function among United States workers.
methodsData from the national, population-based Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study with a 9-year follow-up were used. Validated workplace effort and reward scales were measured at baseline, and cognitive outcomes (including composite cognition, episodic memory, and executive functioning) were measured with the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT) at baseline and follow-up. Multivariable linear regression analyses based on generalized estimating equations (GEE) examined the longitudinal associations under study.
resultsAmong this worker sample of 1,399, after accounting for demographics, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, health conditions, and job control, high reward at baseline was associated with increased composite cognition (regression coefficient: 0.118 [95% CI: 0.049, 0.187]), episodic memory (0.106 [0.024, 0.188]), and executive functioning (0.123 [0.055, 0.191]) during follow-up. The joint exposure of 'high effort and high reward' was also associated with increased composite cognition (0.130 [0.030, 0.231]), episodic memory (0.131 [0.012, 0.250]), and executive functioning (0.117 [0.017, 0.216]), while the combination of 'low effort and high reward' was associated with increased composite cognition (0.106 [0.009, 0.204]) and executive functioning (0.139 [0.042, 0.235]).
conclusionFindings suggest that workplace high reward is related to improved cognitive scores among United States workers. Future research should investigate larger cohorts over longer timespans and expand into disease outcomes such as dementia. If these findings emerge as causal, relevant workplace rewards to promote worker cognitive health should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.