4.5 Article

Bidirectional relations between work-related stress, sleep quality and perseverative cognition

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 391-398

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.08.011

关键词

Longitudinal study; Occupational stress; Rumination; Sleep quality; Temporal associations; Work preoccupation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In this longitudinal two-wave study, bidirectional relations between work-related stress and sleep quality were examined. Moreover, it was investigated whether perseverative cognition is a potential underlying mechanism in this association, related to both work-related stress and sleep quality. Methods: A randomly selected sample of Dutch employees received an online survey in 2012 and 2013. Of all invited employees, 877 participated in both waves. Structural equation modeling was performed to analyze the data. Results: We found evidence for reversed relations between work-related stress and sleep quality. Specifically, when controlling for perseverative cognition, work-related stress was not directly related to subsequent sleep quality, but low sleep quality was associated with an increase in work-related stress over time. Moreover, negative bidirectional associations over time were found between perseverative cognition and sleep quality, and positive bidirectional associations were found between work-related stress and perseverative cognition. Lastly, a mediation analysis showed that perseverative cognition fully mediated the relationship between work-related stress and sleep quality. Conclusion: The study findings suggest that perseverative cognition could be an important underlying mechanism in the association between work-related stress and sleep quality. The bidirectionality of the studied relationships could be an indication of a vicious cycle, in which work-related stress, perseverative cognition, and sleep quality mutually influence each other over time. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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