Abstract

BackgroundAssociations between type A behaviour pattern (TABP) and injuries are inconsistent. These inconsistencies may be due to different effects of various components of TABP, namely time urgency/impatience, hostility and competitive drive. It is important to examine the relationship between the global TABP, its two components, and unintentional injuries, among undergraduates in China.MethodsOn the basis of a previous cross-sectional study, we conducted a matched case–control study. 253 cases and an equal number of age-, gender-, and major-matched controls were included. The questionnaire solicited socio-demographic information, the experience of injuries, the scale of TABP, and other potential confounding factors. Besides the correlation between the global TABP and injuries, the influences of the two components of TABP on injuries were also evaluated. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine the crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs of injury events.ResultsA dose–response relationship was apparent among students who rated themselves higher on the TABP scale (P-value for trend, 0.002), with a crude OR of 2.93 (95% CI: 0.93–9.19) for injuries comparing those with TABP to those with type B behaviour pattern (TBBP). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, TABP remained statistically significant, and the adjusted OR was 5.52 (95% CI: 1.43–21.27); from a comparison of students with TABP to those with TBBP. A dose–response relationship was also apparent between the hostility component and nonfatal injuries, both in crude analysis and after adjusting for other confounders. The relationship between time-hurry and injuries was not statistically significant, based on univariate and multivariate analyses.ConclusionsBoth the global TABP and the hostility component were associated with a dose response increase in the risk of non-fatal unintentional injuries among Chinese undergraduates. Further studies need to be conducted to confirm or reject this correlation.

Highlights

  • Associations between type A behaviour pattern (TABP) and injuries are inconsistent

  • In our previous cross-sectional study, we found a relationship between overall TABP and non-fatal injuries; and the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 2.99 comparing students with TABP to students with type B behaviour pattern (TBBP) [28]

  • The sampling framework was all Assessment of hostility and time urgency The TABP scale revised by the Chinese National Collaborative Study Group for TABP & coronary heart disease [31] was used for all undergraduates, to assess behaviour pattern

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Associations between type A behaviour pattern (TABP) and injuries are inconsistent. These inconsistencies may be due to different effects of various components of TABP, namely time urgency/impatience, hostility and competitive drive. Type A behaviour pattern (TABP), characterized by time urgency, impatience, and hostility, has been traditionally reported to be associated with coronary heart disease since the 1950s [1,2]. A study by Perry in the early 1980s showed that subjects exhibiting more Type A behaviour tended to be more impatient, reported being involved in more accidents, and received more tickets for driving violations than those scoring lower on the Type A scale [5]. Nabi’s famous prospective cohort study of the GAZEL cohort in 2005

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call