ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Sex and gender differences in the associations between psychosocial stressors at work and coronary heart disease incidence: An 18-year longitudinal study of 5192 Canadian workers.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- AJPC 2025 in review: A year of growth & clearer mandate for actionable prevention.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial stressors at work (PSW) are modifiable occupational stressors associated with an increased coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence. While systematic reviews suggest differences between women and men, there has been limited examinations of potential effect modifiers. This study aimed to explore the effect modifications of characteristics related to sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) in the associations between PSW and CHD incidence over an 18-year follow-up. Methods: This study relied on a prospective cohort of 5192 white-collar workers (50 % women) from 19 public and semi-public enterprises in Quebec, Canada. PSW, defined according to the job strain and effort-reward imbalance (ERI) models, were assessed using self-administered, validated questionnaires. Incident CHD cases were identified from medico-administrative databases using validated algorithms. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between PSW and CHD incidence, stratified by sex, and characteristics related to sex (age) and gender (education level, occupational position, and children load). Results: Associations between PSW and CHD incidence differed by sex. In men, being exposed to both job strain and ERI was associated with a 2-fold increased CHD risk (HR: 2.01, 95 % CI: 1.52-2.65), rising to a 2.80-fold risk among those aged 60 and older (HR: 2.80, 95 % CI: 1.90-4.13). Amplified associations were also observed in men with lower education (HR: 3.23, 95 % CI: 1.73-6.03) and a low children load (HR: 2.48, 95 % CI: 1.74-3.54). In women, the association between ERI and CHD was stronger, although it remained marginally non-significant, among those under 60 years-old (HR: 1.57, 95 % CI: 0.96-2.57), with a lower education level (HR: 1.84, 95 % CI: 0.95-3.56) and with an intermediate to high children load (HR: 1.72, 95 % CI: 0.96-3.10). Conclusions: This study reinforces the importance of considering sex- and gender-related characteristics - such as age, education, and caregiving responsibilities - when examining the associations between PSW and CHD incidence. However, the findings observed among women require replication in larger prospective cohorts.
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.