Cross-sectional study shows a strong correlation between hair cortisol concentration and arterial blood pressure in healthcare professionals, indicating hypertension risk.
Background: The relationship between chronic occupational stress (COS)-related hair cortisol concentration (HCC) and arterial blood pressure (ABP) is inconsistent within the relevant preexisting literature. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of COS-related HCC on ABP among healthcare professionals (HPs) with a COS diagnosis. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted among 426 HPs in two healthcare settings in Rivers State, Southern Nigeria. Data were collected, including subjective measures of COS using the Effort-Reward Imbalance questionnaires, as well as objective measures of COS using HCC at >128 pg/mg hair. COS diagnoses were defined using combined subjective and objective measures. Statistical analyses were conducted at a 95% confidence interval and an alpha level of <0.05. Results: 273 (70%) had a COS diagnosis with a mean age of 32.44±5.24 years, and 9.2%, 61.2%, and 29.7% were normotensive, pre-hypertensive, and hypertensive, respectively (p<0.05). The pre-hypertensives and hypertensives were older and had higher mean HCC, body mass index (BMI), effort total score, effort-reward ratio, percentage of OC total score, but lower reward total score compared to the normotensives (p<0.05). HCC had a strong positive correlation with systolic blood pressure (crude beta: 0.724 versus adjusted beta: 0.706; p<0.001), but a moderate positive correlation with diastolic blood pressure (crude beta: 0.477 versus adjusted beta: 0.450; p<0.001). HCC, at >128 pg/mg hair, was associated with pre-hypertension (crude OR: 1.809 versus adjusted OR: 1.611; p<0.001) but more robust with hypertension (crude OR: 3.451 versus adjusted OR: 3.370; p<0.001). Conclusions: Current findings indicate a relationship between COS-associated HCC and the ABP indices, which should be considered during clinical management for COS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amadi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: