4.5 Article

Do psychosocial job stressors differentially affect the sleep quality of men and women? A study using the HILDA Survey

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 736-738

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab056

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship [1191061]
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scheme
  3. Australian Research Council DECRA Fellowship [DE200100607]
  4. Melbourne Disability Institute Scholarship
  5. Australian Government RTP Scheme
  6. Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship [101160]
  7. Academy of Finland [287488, 319200]
  8. Australian Research Council [DP180101217]
  9. Victorian Health and Medical Research Fellowship
  10. Australian Research Council [DE200100607] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  11. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1191061] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that low job control, high job demands, and low job security were associated with poorer sleep quality. Moreover, there was evidence of effect modification by gender on the relationship between job security and sleep quality, indicating that the combined effect of being male and having low job security is greater than the summed interactive effect.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether gender was an effect modifier of the relationship between three psychosocial job stressors and sleep quality, in a representative sample of 7280 employed Australians. We conducted linear regressions and effect measure modification analyses. Low job control, high job demands and low job security were associated with poorer sleep quality. There was evidence of effect modification of the relationship between job security and sleep quality by gender on the additive scale, indicating that the combined effect of being male and having low job security is greater than the summed interactive effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据