Objectives A growing body of research has investigated the adverse effects of psychosocial work factors on blood pressure (BP) elevation. There is now a clear need for an up-to-date, critical synthesis of reliable findings on this topic. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adverse effects of psychosocial work factors of both the demand–control–support (DCS) and effort–reward imbalance (ERI) models on BP among men and women, according to the methodological quality of the studies.

Methods To be eligible, studies had to: (i) evaluate at least one psychosocial work factor, (ii) evaluate BP or hypertension, (iii) comprise ≥100 workers, (iv) be written in English or French, and (v) be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Result A total of 74 studies were included. Of these, 64 examined the DCS model, and 12 looked at the ERI model, with 2 studies considering both models. Approximately half the studies observed a significant adverse effect of psychosocial work factors on BP. A more consistent effect was observed, however, among men than women. For job strain, a more consistent effect was also observed in studies of higher methodological quality, ie, studies using a prospective design and ambulatory BP measures.

Conclusions A more consistent adverse effect of psychosocial work factors was observed among men than women and in studies of higher methodological quality. These findings contribute to the current effort of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease by documenting the psychosocial etiology of elevated BP, a major cardiovascular risk factor.

This article refers to the following texts of the Journal: 1996;22(4):294-305  1998;24(3):190-196  1998;24(5):334-343  1999;25(4):376-381  2002;28(4):238-248  2003;29(3):206-215  2004;30(6):477-485  2005;31(5):352-359  2006;32(6):431-442  1994;20(5):349-363  1993;19(5):313-318  1991;17(6):380-385  1990;16(4):258-269  1989;15(4):271-279  1988;14(3):189-196  1986;12(5):476-485

The following articles refer to this text: 2014;40(1):89-95; 2014;40(5):457-464; 2020;46(1):1-4; 2020;46(6):589-598

Key terms blood pressure; cardiovascular risk factor; cardiovascular risk factor; demand–control model; demand–control–support model; effort–reward imbalance; effort–reward imbalance model; hypertension; job control; Karasek; overcommitment; psychological demand; psychosocial risk factor; Siegrist; systematic review; workplace stressor

Download additional material

• Supplementary material

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.