Excuse me, but did the IPD-work consortium just "falsify" the job-strain model?
In a recent commentary (1) on a large (N=197 473) individual participant meta-analysis of job strain and incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (2), it was suggested that the population attributable risk (PAR) was smaller than expected (3.4%). And while this issue was addressed by the original author...
Saved in:
Main Author: | Michael Ingre (Author) |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Published: |
Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health (NOROSH),
2015-09-01T00:00:00Z.
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Similar Items
-
Excuse Me!
by: Hughes, Rupert, 1872-1956 -
Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
by: Fransson Eleonor I, et al.
Published: (2012) -
Recommendations for individual participant data meta-analyses on work stressors and health outcomes: comments on IPD-Work Consortium papers
by: BongKyoo Choi, et al.
Published: (2015) -
Association of alcohol use with years lived without major chronic diseases: A multicohort study from the IPD-Work consortium and UK Biobank
by: Solja T. Nyberg, et al.
Published: (2022) -
IPD-Work consortium: pre-defined meta-analyses of individual-participant data strengthen evidence base for a link between psychosocial factors and health
by: Mika Kivimäki, et al.
Published: (2015)