SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Dear Sir

We read with great interest the paper by Nyberg et al. [1] on job strain (a work stressor combining low job control and high psychological job demands) in relation to body mass index (BMI) using 13 European cohort studies. First of all, we think that the authors' brief characterization of the existing literature as being null or mixed does not give appropriate weight to the consistency of studies that have reported significant associations between job strain and obesity. Several longitudinal studies [2-4] have supported that job strain, by itself or in combination with low social support at work, is associated with obesity in working populations. Ishizaki et al. [2] reported that whilst the cumulative (baseline and follow-up) exposure of job strain was not associated with increased BMI, it was associated with increased waist circumference in Japanese workers. Choi et al. [3] found a dose–response association between the cumulative exposure of job strain and abdominal obesity (based on waist circumference) in US workers (the MIDUS study). Brunner et al. [4] also found a dose–response association between the frequency of iso-strain (the combination of job strain and low social support at work) and obesity (based on both BMI and waist circumference) in British workers (Whitehall II Study). Furthermore, the authors reported elsewhere [5] that job strain was longitudinally associated with leisure-time physical inactivity in their European cohort data.

Secondly, we think that the authors may have underestimated the association between job strain and obesity in their longitudinal analyses. The authors found a moderate, but significant association between job strain and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg m−2) in their cross-sectional analyses with 13 cohort data, but not in their longitudinal analyses with four cohort data (Belstress Study, Whitehall II Study, Finnish Public Sector Study and Health and Social Support Study). However, the results of their longitudinal analyses seem to be biased towards the null due to several biases: differential attrition rate by job strain status, confounding effect of smoking and short follow-up period. The authors did not report in the paper whether they examined a differential attrition rate by job strain status during the follow-up period in each of the four cohort data in their longitudinal analyses. We found elsewhere [6] that considerably more people in the job strain group at baseline than in the nonjob strain group dropped out during the follow-up period in the Belstress Study, one of the four cohort studies. Thus, the longitudinal association between job strain and obesity in the paper may have been underestimated. Another problem is that the results of their longitudinal analyses were controlled for only age, gender and socio-economic status. We believe the authors should have presented the longitudinal results in which smoking status was controlled for as they described in the method section of the paper and in the cross-sectional analysis. Current smoking was more prevalent amongst workers in the job strain group than in the nonjob strain group in another paper by the authors using the same data base [7]. Also in the same paper [7], current smokers at baseline in the job strain group were less likely to quit smoking at follow-up. It is well known that cigarette smoking reduces weight [8], and smoking cessation is associated with weight gain [9, 10]. Therefore, their longitudinal association between job strain and obesity without adjustment for smoking status (current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers) both at baseline and at follow-up may have been underestimated. In addition, the short follow-up period (median of 4 years) of the four cohort studies, resulting in a very low (<6%) obesity incidence rate, could be another reason for the null association between job strain and obesity in their longitudinal analysis. The follow-up periods of the Finnish Public Sector Study (2–4 years) and the Health and Social Support Study (5 years) were <6 years [11]. This concern makes sense considering that most people gain weight gradually, for example, on average, 0.5–1.0 kg per year in US general populations [12]. Also the follow-up periods of all three positive longitudinal studies [2-4] on job strain and obesity were 6 years or longer. In contrast, the follow-up periods of all three null longitudinal studies [13-15] on job strain and obesity were 5 years or shorter, except for one very long follow-up (26 years) study [16]. We do not know whether the authors conducted a sensitivity test of their longitudinal findings in a subsample of subjects having a follow-up period of ≥6 years.

Thirdly, we think that the authors did not provide evidence for the association between job strain and weight loss in their longitudinal analyses. Although the authors interpreted that their longitudinal findings were consistent with their cross-sectional findings in terms of a U-shaped relationship between job strain and BMI, their claim was not demonstrated in the paper because the analyses of the cross-sectional and longitudinal data were substantially different. The authors reported that job strain was more prevalent in both obese and underweight workers than in normal-weight workers in their cross-sectional analyses. However, whilst they tested the association between the cumulative exposure of job strain and new cases of obesity amongst normal-weight and overweight workers at baseline in their longitudinal analyses (N = 42 222, Table 2) [1], there was no test of the association between the cumulative exposure of job strain and new cases of weight loss (changes in BMI categories: obesity to overweight; overweight to normal weight; or normal weight to underweight) in their longitudinal analyses, especially the transition from normal weight to underweight, which would be most equivalent to the finding reported in the cross-sectional analysis. The dual effect of job strain on weight (gain and loss) was initially suggested by Kivimäki et al. [13] as a reason for mixed findings in the literature on the association between job strain and BMI. However, it was not supported later in a methodologically superior Japanese study [2]. In the Japanese study, the cumulative exposure of job strain was examined in relation to the change in BMI after controlling for baseline BMI, whilst in the study by Kivimäki et al. [13], only one-time (baseline) job strain was examined. The U-shaped relationship between job strain and underweight in their cross-sectional analyses may be due to pre-existing chronic diseases of subjects as they described in the discussion section of the paper.

Finally, we disagree with the conclusions the authors made that ‘it is unlikely that intervention to reduce job strain would be effective in combating obesity at a population level'. We think that more longitudinal and intervention studies are needed to further elucidate the role of adverse psychosocial working conditions including, but not limited to, job strain in the aetiology of obesity in working populations [17]. We also think that current evidence for the association between job strain and obesity, although limited, indicates great potential as an effective public health strategy for prevention of obesity in working populations. Additionally, recent policies on Total Worker Health from NIOSH in the United States [18, 19] suggest that workplace health promotion programmes (to reduce smoking, encourage healthy eating, physical activity reduce weight, etc.) may be more effective when they also ‘address the physical and organizational work environment’ [20, 21].

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Top of page
  • 1
    Nyberg ST, Heikkilä K, Fransson EI et al. Job strain in relation to body mass index: pooled analysis of 160 000 adults from 13 cohort studies. J Intern Med 2012; 272: 6573.
  • 2
    Ishizaki M, Nakagawa H, Morikawa Y, Honda R, Yamada Y, Kawakami N. Influence of job strain on changes in body mass index and waist circumference – 6-year longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health 2008; 34: 28896.
  • 3
    Choi B, Schnall P, Dobson M, Landsbergis P, Yang H, Baker D. Job control and job demands as risk factors for central obesity in US workers: a 9-year follow-up study. Presented at the 4th ICOH-WOPS conference on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 15–17, 2010.
  • 4
    Brunner EJ, Chandola T, Marmot MG. Prospective effect of job strain on general and central obesity in the Whitehall II study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 82837.
  • 5
    Fransson EI, Heikkila K, Nyberg ST et al. Job strain as a risk factor for leisure-time physical inactivity: an individual-participant meta-analysis of up to 170,000 men and women The IPD-Work Consortium. Am J Epidemiol 2012; 176: 107889.
  • 6
    Clays E, De Bacquer D, Leynen F, Kornitzer M, Kittel F, De Backer G. Job stress and depression symptoms in middle-aged workers–prospective results from the Belstress study. Scand J Work Environ Health 2007; 33: 2529.
  • 7
    Heikkilä K, Nyberg ST, Fransson EI et al. Job strain and tobacco smoking: an individual-participant data meta-analysis of 166,130 adults in 15 European studies. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e35463.
  • 8
    Audrain-McGovern J, Benowitz NL. Cigarette smoking, nicotine, and body weight. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90: 1648.
  • 9
    Williamson DF, Madans J, Anda RF, Kleinman JC, Giovino GA, Byers T. Smoking cessation and severity of weight gain in a national cohort. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 73945.
  • 10
    Aubin HJ, Farley A, Lycett D, Lahmek P, Aveyard P. Weight gain in smokers after quitting cigarettes: meta-analysis. BMJ 2012; 345: e4439.
  • 11
    Heikkilä K, Fransson EI, Nyberg ST et al. Job strain and health-related lifestyle: findings from an individual-participant meta-analysis of 118,000 working adults. Am J Public Health 2013; 103: 20907.
  • 12
    Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Reed GW, Peters JC. Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science 2003; 299: 8535.
  • 13
    Kivimäki M, Head J, Ferrie JE et al. Work stress, weight gain and weight loss: evidence for bidirectional effects of job strain on body mass index in the Whitehall II study. Int J Obes 2006; 30: 9827.
  • 14
    Berset M, Semmer NK, Elfering A, Jacobshagen N, Meier LL. Does stress at work make you gain weight? A two-year longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health 2011; 37: 4553.
  • 15
    Eek F, Ostergren PO. Factors associated with BMI change over five years in a Swedish adult population. Results from the Scania Public Health Cohort Study. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37: 53244.
  • 16
    Kivimaki M, Leino-Arjas P, Luukkonen R, Riihimaki H, Vahtera J, Kirjonen J. Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of industrial employees. BMJ 2002; 325: 857.
  • 17
    Choi B, Schnall P, Dobson M et al. Exploring occupational and behavioral risk factors for obesity in firefighters: a theoretical framework and study design. Saf Health Work 2011; 2: 30112.
  • 18
    McLellan D, Harden E, Markkanen P, Sorensen G. SafeWell practice guidelines: an integrated approach to worker health, version 2.0. Harvard School of Public Health Center for Work, Health and Well-being, 2012. Available at http://centerforworkhealth.sph.harvard.edu/images/stories/SafeWellPracticeGuidelines&ExecSumm_Sept2012.pdf. Accessed on November 4, 2013.
  • 19
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Research Compendium: The NIOSH Total Worker Health™ Program: Seminal Research Papers 2012. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2012. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-146.
  • 20
    Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Hunt MK et al. The effects of a health promotion-health protection intervention on behavior change: the WellWorks Study. Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 168590.
  • 21
    Hymel PA, Loeppke RR, Baase CM et al. Workplace health protection and promotion: a new pathway for a healthier- and safer-workforce. J Occup Environ Med 2011; 53: 695702.