The paper focuses on the meta-analysis on the relationship of the straining in jobs and the obesity. The obesity or over weight is measured with the help of the job strain. There are various factors, which influence the job strain that relates to the risk of the obesity. The paper considered the review of the article titled “Job strain and risk of obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.” According to this paper, the job strain influences the intense of the risk of obesity. As per the paper, the risk factors such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and stroke are occurring due to the risk of obesity.
The topic is appropriate and relates the job strain to the risk in over weights or obesity. The job strain and risk of obesity are related to each other. By adopting the topic, the straining in jobs and the over weights or obesity are analyzed in the research using certain standards.
The data sources and searches are very important for the analysis. The steps involved in the meta-analysis are given as follows:
- Data sources and searches
- Inclusion criteria
- Synthesis of data
- Statistical analysis
Data sources and searches
The paper adopted the standards of PRISMA guidelines. The literature search consists of “all fields” sourced from the online sources such as Embase and PubMed. The search terms involved in the research are stress, job strain, demands, control, workload, psychosocial, body mass index (Hebden L, et.al, 2012).
- Exposures at individual levels
- Data at the outcome or results
- Impacts of strain
- Outcome: Weight gain or Obesity
These criteria are considered in the research and the research provides more focus on the theoretical models. The statistical inferences are interpreted through the odds ratios, estimates in risks and hazard ratios at the confidence levels of 95% (Johansson K, et.al, 2014).
Synthesis of data
The meta-analysis was conducted for the study that helps to provide results with odd ratios. The model synthesized with the age, sex, socioeconomic status as covariates. The model considers these associations of job strains, obesity, and adjustments with the variables such as sex, age, and socioeconomic status. The study leads to the associations in the increase and decrease in job strain with the changes in obesity or over weights (M Kivimäki, et.al, 2015).
Meta-analysis was conducted to analyse the studies for the estimates. The relationship between the job strain and obesity are analysed individually. The study was conducted with the consideration of the published
The study considered the 3579 results with the appropriate studies of five papers with the included criteria. Eight independent studies are sourced from the five papers that are added in the meta-analysis.
The results clearly denote the lack of interrelationship between the job straining and overweight or obesity. The increased strains in job related to increase in the risk of obesity and the decrease in job strain is not linked to decrease in the risk of obesity. The longitudinal findings in the results provided inconsistency with the relationship of the strains in the job and obesity risks (Nyberg ST, et.al , 2012).
Eight studies are utilized in the five papers for the meta-analysis in the research about the relationship of the factors associated to the job strain and obesity risks.
N is the total samples who are involved in the research study for the analysis of the relationship of job strain with that of the obesity. As per the research, total N is 42,222.
Test Statistic Calculation:
As per the paper, the statistic calculation is based on the fixed effect analysis using l2 statistics.
Significance of results:
The results provided the odds ratio as 1.00 with little heterogeneity and other case did not show the relationship between the job strain and weights. The increase in job strain has associated to the increase in weights and obesity.
No moderators involved in the research as the factors associated show the inconsistency in the relationship. The moderators in the research not involved.
The study shows artefacts and inconsistency in the research. The artefacts included in the research can be corrected in terms by the determination of the specific potential differences in response characteristics during straining and observation of the unhealthy eating with stress that may result to the increased obesity. However, there requires new factors for the research.
Implications of the results:
The results from the overall analysis lead to the fact that there is no relationship between the straining in jobs and the obesity as the inconsistencies are present in the study.
Interpretation of results in an organizational setting
The results in the organizational setting are provided the results that have no association between the strain in works and over weights. The interpretation is clear which specifies there is no linkage between the work strain and over weights or obesity. However, results provide that the increase in job strain and increase in obesity are included. Within the organizational setting, the job strain and obesity can be measured. Apart from these, the other factors are also included with the analysis. The study is suitable to measure in organizational settings.
Hebden L, Chey T, Allman-Farinelli M. Lifestyle intervention for preventing weight gain in young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Obesity Rev 2012; 13: 692–710.
Johansson K, Neovius M, Hemmingsson E. Effects of anti-obesity drugs, diet, and exercise on weight-loss maintenance after a very-low-calorie diet or low-calorie diet: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2014; 99: 14–23
M Kivimäki, A Singh-Manoux, S Nyberg, M Jokela and M Virtanen. Job strain and risk of obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies, International Journal of Obesity, 2015, vol. 39, p:1597–1600
Nyberg ST, Heikkila K, Fransson EI, Alfredsson L, De Bacquer D, Bjorner JB Job strain in relation to body mass index: pooled analysis of 160 000 adults from 13 cohort studies. J Intern Med 2012; 272: 65–73.