Work pace control and pregnancy health in a population-based sample of employed women in Norway

Abstract

The following article refers to this text: 2007;33(4):241-320Key terms: back pain; birthweight; job control; pelvic pain; preeclampsia; prenatal care; stress; work break; work rate This article in PubMed: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9710373 Scand J Work Environ Health 1998;24(3):206-212 Work pace control and pregnancy health in a population-based sample of employed women in Norway ObjectivesThis study explored the possible effects of power to control one's own work pace on pregnancy health. Methods Questionnaires were sent to all parturients in Norway between 16 October and 26 November 1989 for completion prior to discharge from the hospital; 87.2% responded. The study population comprised 3321 respondents with singleton pregnancies and paid work beyond the 3rd month of pregnancy. Power to control work pace was measured as self-reported influence on breaks and work pace and absence of external pacing. Pregnancy health was defined by the prevalence of preeclampsia, disabling posterior pelvic pain, low-back pain, and birthweight of ~2 5 0 0 g for the offspring. Results Pregnancy health improved with increasing power to control work pace, both in manual and nonmanual work. The risk decreased with increasing control for all 4 outcomes, but the impact on birthweight was restricted to nullipara. After adjustment for age, parity, education, smoking, and manual work, the decreasing trend remained significant for preeclampsia and low birthweight of the first born. In a comparison with women with the highest level of control, the adjusted odds ratios for women with no control were 1.6 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.9-3.11 for preeclampsia, 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.4) for disabling posterior pelvic pain, 1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.8) for low-back pain, and 2.5 (95% CI 0.9-6.8) for low birthweight (nullipara). C O~C~U S~O~S Women with power to control their own work pace had better pregnancy health than women without such power. The results suggest increased individual control over work pace as a prime target for job adjustment during pregnancy.

Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPP), I: Terminology, clinical presentation, and prevalence

“…The sum of the prevalences of PPP, PLBP, and ''PPP plus PLBP combined'' equalled a number (24.2%+23.6%+8.0%=55.8%) that was very close to that of lumbopelvic pain (mixed, 56.9%). This fact remained unchanged (58.2% for mixed) when we recalculated prevalence after excluding papers that simultaneously used all four diagnostic categories in the same study [85,86,103,113]. We conclude that PPP during pregnancy can be distinguished effectively from PLBP.…”

“…Published frequencies of disabling problems among women with lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy range from 21% to 81% (median 28%) [28,31,33,82,113]. This variance may be due to sampling bias, differences in the questions asked, or the task in question.…”

“…Overall, the literature reveals that PPP deserves serious attention from the clinical and research communities, at all times and in all countries. 78,113], which may persist, or arise, after delivery [67], and will, in some patients, lead to severe disability [28,31,33,56,67,82,113]. Unfortunately, much remains unclear.…”

Extracellular Calcium and Magnesium in Preeclampsia and Eclampsia

“…2 Despite active research for many years, the etiology of this disorder remains unknown 3 , although contributory factors include, obesity, diabetes, calcium deficiency 4,5 , older maternal age and job stress 6,7 . Environmental and nutritional factors may therefore play a role in the aetiology of preeclampsia.…”

Psychosocial Stress Related to the Loss of a Close Relative the Year Before or During Pregnancy and Risk of Preeclampsia

“…5 Psychosocial stress induces sympathetic arousal, activates the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis, and may thus promote endothelial dysfunction, 6 proinflammatory activity, 7,8 and blood pressure elevations. 9 Only a few studies have investigated the association between antenatal stress and preeclampsia and their findings are not conclusive, perhaps because of low statistical power, [10][11][12][13] exposure misclassification, 10,12,[14][15][16] induced in part by coping, and the risk of reverse causation. 16 Death of a close family member is considered one of the most severe sources of stress exposure, 17 especially, if the loss is unexpected or if it involves children or the spouse 17 ; it is likely to lead to a hormonal response irrespective of coping capacity.…”