↓ Skip to main content

Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 29,904)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals
Published in
The Lancet, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60295-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mika Kivimäki, Markus Jokela, Solja T Nyberg, Archana Singh-Manoux, Eleonor I Fransson, Lars Alfredsson, Jakob B Bjorner, Marianne Borritz, Hermann Burr, Annalisa Casini, Els Clays, Dirk De Bacquer, Nico Dragano, Raimund Erbel, Goedele A Geuskens, Mark Hamer, Wendela E Hooftman, Irene L Houtman, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, France Kittel, Anders Knutsson, Markku Koskenvuo, Thorsten Lunau, Ida E H Madsen, Martin L Nielsen, Maria Nordin, Tuula Oksanen, Jan H Pejtersen, Jaana Pentti, Reiner Rugulies, Paula Salo, Martin J Shipley, Johannes Siegrist, Andrew Steptoe, Sakari B Suominen, Töres Theorell, Jussi Vahtera, Peter J M Westerholm, Hugo Westerlund, Dermot O'Reilly, Meena Kumari, G David Batty, Jane E Ferrie, Marianna Virtanen

Abstract

Long working hours might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but prospective evidence is scarce, imprecise, and mostly limited to coronary heart disease. We aimed to assess long working hours as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease and stroke. We identified published studies through a systematic review of PubMed and Embase from inception to Aug 20, 2014. We obtained unpublished data for 20 cohort studies from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations (IPD-Work) Consortium and open-access data archives. We used cumulative random-effects meta-analysis to combine effect estimates from published and unpublished data. We included 25 studies from 24 cohorts in Europe, the USA, and Australia. The meta-analysis of coronary heart disease comprised data for 603 838 men and women who were free from coronary heart disease at baseline; the meta-analysis of stroke comprised data for 528 908 men and women who were free from stroke at baseline. Follow-up for coronary heart disease was 5·1 million person-years (mean 8·5 years), in which 4768 events were recorded, and for stroke was 3·8 million person-years (mean 7·2 years), in which 1722 events were recorded. In cumulative meta-analysis adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, compared with standard hours (35-40 h per week), working long hours (≥55 h per week) was associated with an increase in risk of incident coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR] 1·13, 95% CI 1·02-1·26; p=0·02) and incident stroke (1·33, 1·11-1·61; p=0·002). The excess risk of stroke remained unchanged in analyses that addressed reverse causation, multivariable adjustments for other risk factors, and different methods of stroke ascertainment (range of RR estimates 1·30-1·42). We recorded a dose-response association for stroke, with RR estimates of 1·10 (95% CI 0·94-1·28; p=0·24) for 41-48 working hours, 1·27 (1·03-1·56; p=0·03) for 49-54 working hours, and 1·33 (1·11-1·61; p=0·002) for 55 working hours or more per week compared with standard working hours (ptrend<0·0001). Employees who work long hours have a higher risk of stroke than those working standard hours; the association with coronary heart disease is weaker. These findings suggest that more attention should be paid to the management of vascular risk factors in individuals who work long hours. Medical Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, European Union New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health research programme, Finnish Work Environment Fund, Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, German Social Accident Insurance, Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Academy of Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands), US National Institutes of Health, British Heart Foundation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,628 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
Germany 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 382 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 73 17%
Student > Master 62 15%
Student > Bachelor 58 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 13%
Other 48 11%
Other 124 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 166 40%
Psychology 52 12%
Social Sciences 39 9%
Unspecified 38 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 6%
Other 99 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2224. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#438
of 12,158,083 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#25
of 29,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10
of 237,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#2
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,158,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.