Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand

Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445" }, "headline": "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of...", "datePublished": "2024-11-29T17:30:33", "dateModified": "2025-06-05T14:44:03", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yupha Wongrostrai" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Araya Chiangkhong" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Charin Suwanwong" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anon Khunakorncharatphong" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Stroke survivors, particularly those of working age, are at an increased risk of recurrent stroke within one–five years of the initial event, largely due to suboptimal management of risk factors. This study aimed to identify lifestyle and occupational factors associated with recurrent stroke in this demographic population. Methods This case-control study included 100 patients with recurrent ischemic stroke and 200 ischemic stroke survivors without recurrence, who were recruited from the hospital database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant factors associated with recurrence, which were presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The mean age was 45.4 years (SD = 15.1) among cases and 50.6 years (SD = 6.5) among controls. The male-to-female ratios were 1.17:1 and 1.94:1 in the case and control groups, respectively. Significant factors associated with recurrent stroke included female sex (aOR: 1.83; 95% CI [1.10–3.29]), high fasting blood sugar (aOR: 3.70; 95% CI [1.66–8.27]), current alcohol consumption (aOR: 3.63; 95% CI [2.01–6.54]), sedentary lifestyle (aOR: 2.77; 95% CI [1.50–5.13]), and lack of workplace support for health (aOR: 2.02; 95% CI [1.13–3.63]). The associations between these factors and stroke recurrence varied according to the age group. Conclusions This study highlights the critical role of modifiable lifestyle and occupational factors in stroke recurrence among working-age adults. Tailored age-specific prevention strategies—emphasizing physical activity, reduced alcohol use, and improved workplace health environments—may reduce the risk of recurrence and enhance health outcomes in this population. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445", "name": "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke..." } } ] } Home Browse Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Wongrostrai Y, Chiangkhong A, Suwanwong C and Khunakorncharatphong A. Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Yupha Wongrostrai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9742-5790 1 , Araya Chiangkhong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8147-6462 1 , Charin Suwanwong https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-1342 2 , Anon Khunakorncharatphong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-9200 3 Yupha Wongrostrai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9742-5790 1 , Araya Chiangkhong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8147-6462 1 , Charin Suwanwong https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-1342 2 , Anon Khunakorncharatphong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-9200 3 PUBLISHED 05 Jun 2025 Author details Author details 1 Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 2 Behavioral Science Research Institute, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand 3 Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Yupha Wongrostrai Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Araya Chiangkhong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Charin Suwanwong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Anon Khunakorncharatphong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Sociology of Health gateway. Abstract Background Stroke survivors, particularly those of working age, are at an increased risk of recurrent stroke within one–five years of the initial event, largely due to suboptimal management of risk factors. This study aimed to identify lifestyle and occupational factors associated with recurrent stroke in this demographic population. Methods This case-control study included 100 patients with recurrent ischemic stroke and 200 ischemic stroke survivors without recurrence, who were recruited from the hospital database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant factors associated with recurrence, which were presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The mean age was 45.4 years (SD = 15.1) among cases and 50.6 years (SD = 6.5) among controls. The male-to-female ratios were 1.17:1 and 1.94:1 in the case and control groups, respectively. Significant factors associated with recurrent stroke included female sex (aOR: 1.83; 95% CI [1.10–3.29]), high fasting blood sugar (aOR: 3.70; 95% CI [1.66–8.27]), current alcohol consumption (aOR: 3.63; 95% CI [2.01–6.54]), sedentary lifestyle (aOR: 2.77; 95% CI [1.50–5.13]), and lack of workplace support for health (aOR: 2.02; 95% CI [1.13–3.63]). The associations between these factors and stroke recurrence varied according to the age group. Conclusions This study highlights the critical role of modifiable lifestyle and occupational factors in stroke recurrence among working-age adults. Tailored age-specific prevention strategies—emphasizing physical activity, reduced alcohol use, and improved workplace health environments—may reduce the risk of recurrence and enhance health outcomes in this population. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Recurrent stroke, Working-age, Adult, Urban, Thailand Corresponding Author(s) Araya Chiangkhong ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Araya Chiangkhong Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was financially supported by Navamindradhiraj University Research Fund-RESEARCH.NMU 62/2564. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Wongrostrai Y et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Wongrostrai Y, Chiangkhong A, Suwanwong C and Khunakorncharatphong A. Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.3 ) First published: 29 Nov 2024, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.1 ) Latest published: 05 Jun 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 In this revised version, we have addressed all reviewer suggestions to enhance the clarity and rigor of the article. We clarified that the study focuses on recurrent ischemic stroke and provided the exact distribution of stroke subtypes. The definition of recurrent stroke was aligned with established criteria and the rationale for excluding TIA patients was explained. We added the follow-up duration of 12 months and improved Table 3 by including subgroup counts and specifying adjusted variables. The Introduction and Discussion were refined to focus more on lifestyle and occupational risk factors rather than age alone. Lastly, the Conclusion was rewritten to emphasize key findings without statistical values, enhancing its accessibility for readers. In this revised version, we have addressed all reviewer suggestions to enhance the clarity and rigor of the article. We clarified that the study focuses on recurrent ischemic stroke and provided the exact distribution of stroke subtypes. The definition of recurrent stroke was aligned with established criteria and the rationale for excluding TIA patients was explained. We added the follow-up duration of 12 months and improved Table 3 by including subgroup counts and specifying adjusted variables. The Introduction and Discussion were refined to focus more on lifestyle and occupational risk factors rather than age alone. Lastly, the Conclusion was rewritten to emphasize key findings without statistical values, enhancing its accessibility for readers. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Norsima Nazifah Sidek See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lamia M’barek READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Stroke remains a major global public health concern, ranking as the second leading cause of death and a substantial contributor to long-term disability. 1 Urban centers, such as Bangkok, have experienced a marked increase in stroke incidence, driven by shifts in socioeconomic conditions and urban environmental stressors. 2 , 3 Thailand’s urban areas have undergone significant lifestyle transformations as the population transitions from agrarian to urban-centric living. 4 , 5 Bangkok, in particular, exemplifies the dual challenges of rapid urbanization—offering improved access to healthcare while also introducing new health risks such as air pollution, urban heat-island effects, and psychosocial stress. 6 Recent national data report a stroke recurrence rate of 53.6% within one year, indicating a high burden of secondary stroke events in Thailand. 7 Recurrent strokes are often associated with poorly controlled modifiable risk factors, including excessive alcohol consumption, inadequate diabetes management, and uncontrolled hypertension. These factors contribute to increased mortality, frequent hospital readmissions, and long-term disability. 8 – 11 While advanced age is a well-established predictor of recurrence, emerging evidence reveals a growing burden among working-age adults (18–60 years) in urban areas such as Bangkok. 12 – 14 Although returning to work after stroke has been shown to improve well-being and social reintegration, 15 , 16 urban occupational environments may paradoxically increase recurrence risk due to chronic stress, limited physical activity, and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors. Liangruenrom et al. identified strong associations between sedentary behavior and urban living in working-age Thai adults, highlighting the psychosocial and environmental challenges embedded in modern occupational contexts. 17 Furthermore, ischemic stroke accounts for approximately 80–85% of all stroke cases in Thailand, including among working-age adults in Bangkok. 18 Given this high prevalence and the lack of targeted evidence, the present study focuses specifically on recurrent ischemic stroke, with the primary outcome defined as recurrence within 12 months of the initial event. Despite prior investigations into lifestyle and clinical risk factors for recurrent stroke in working-age adults, 14 , 19 significant knowledge gaps remain—particularly regarding the influence of urban work-related stressors in this population. These include high job demands, limited workplace support, interpersonal conflicts, and sedentary working conditions. 20 , 21 Understanding these factors is critical for developing effective, context-specific interventions to reduce stroke recurrence and improve the quality of life among this vulnerable demographic. Methods Setting and sample This study employed a case-control design. Participants were classified based on their recurrent stroke status. The study included consecutive working-age adults (aged 20–60 years) who were diagnosed with first-ever ischemic stroke at the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, between July 2020 and August 2021. Ischemic stroke was the most common stroke type observed in this setting, accounting for approximately 85% of all initial stroke cases during the study period. Cases were defined as patients who had experienced a recurrent ischemic stroke , confirmed by a neurologist using computerized tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recurrent stroke was defined as the occurrence of a new focal neurological deficit lasting more than 24 hours and clinically distinct from the index stroke. To differentiate true recurrence from stroke progression, only events that occurred more than 28 days after the initial ischemic stroke were considered recurrent, based on definitions used in prior epidemiological studies. 22 Controls were ischemic stroke survivors without any documented recurrence who attended regular follow-up visits at the hospital’s neurology outpatient department during the same period. Controls were randomly selected from the hospital registry and matched according to the inclusion criteria. Both cases and controls were required to have continuously resided in the urban areas of Bangkok for at least five years prior to participation. Exclusion criteria included unemployment at the time of recruitment, loss of consciousness at stroke onset, hemorrhagic stroke, hemorrhagic transformation, transient ischemic attack (TIA) , or other significant neurological impairments that could affect accurate behavioral recall. Patients with TIA were excluded because TIA is characterized by transient neurological symptoms without lasting deficits or confirmatory imaging findings, which can complicate the classification of stroke recurrence. Participants were stratified into age groups (25–40 and 41–60 years) based on occupational health literature, which classifies these age bands into early- and mid-to-late-career stages. 23 , 24 The sample size was calculated using Epi Info software version 7.2.5.0 (CDC, Atlanta, USA), available at: https://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/index.html .The calculation used a double population formula suitable for an unmatched case-control study, based on a recurrent stroke rate among controls of 50.5%, and an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.44, derived from a prior study conducted in India. 25 To achieve a 95% confidence interval (CI) with 80% statistical power and maintain a controls-to-cases ratio of 2:1. The initial sample size was 250. An additional 20% was added to account for potential non-responses, resulting in a final total of 300 participants (100 cases and 200 controls). Instruments A structured questionnaire was developed based on a literature review of stroke prevention guidelines. 26 The tool consists of items covering three main domains: demographic characteristics (age, gender, and marital status), health-related behaviors, and occupational factors. Health-related behaviors were retrospectively assessed over the past year and categorized into four domains: (i) preventive health behavior, (ii) smoking status, (iii) drinking status, and (iv) a sedentary lifestyle. The questionnaire covered demographic characteristics (age, gender, and marital status), health-related behaviors (preventive health behavior, smoking status, drinking status, and sedentary lifestyle), and occupational factors (interpersonal relationships at the workplace, job characteristics, and physical work environment). Clinical characteristics, such as stroke subtypes, fasting blood sugar (FBS), body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, were obtained from medical records. Health-related behaviors, reflecting the past year, were assessed following key guidelines and insights from the literature. Health-related behaviors, gathered retrospectively over the past year, were assessed following the key recommendations and insights from the literature and were organized into four domains: (i) preventive health behavior, (ii) smoking status, (iii) drinking status, and (iv) sedentary lifestyle. Preventive health behavior was measured by compliance with recommended preventive measures, such as medication adherence, physical activity, regular physical examinations, sufficient sleep, maintaining a healthy weight, and a healthy diet (13 items). Participants rated their responses on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from ‘always’ to ‘never’. The Cronbach’s alpha for preventive health behavior was 0.79. Smoking status was determined by asking participants if they currently smoked. The response categories were ‘never’, ‘ever’, and ‘yes’. Participants were classified as non-smokers (never and ever combined) and current smokers. Drinking status was assessed by asking participants if they currently drank alcohol. The response categories were ‘never’, ‘ever’, and ‘yes’. Participants were classified as non-drinkers (never and ever combined) and current drinkers. The sedentary lifestyle was assessed using a 6-item scale specifically developed for this study, which was informed by the definitions of sedentary behavior outlined by Tremblay et al. 27 This scale includes activities such as lying down, reclining, and sitting. Participants responded to the items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from ‘always’ to ‘never.’ The internal consistency of the sedentary lifestyle scale was measured, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70. The measurement tool for occupational characteristics was developed based on a thorough review of the relevant literature, which identified three primary domains for assessment: interpersonal relationships in the workplace, job characteristics, and the physical work environment. Interpersonal relationships were evaluated by examining the quality of interactions with colleagues and supervisors, 28 , 29 employing five specific items that pertain to job autonomy, job feedback, task significance, task identity, and skill variety. Participants rated their experiences using a 3-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘always’ to ‘never.’ The physical work environment was defined according to participants’ perceptions of several factors, including lighting, noise, temperature, and workplace support for health, assessed through four items. Responses were categorized as ‘no’ or ‘yes.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for job characteristics was determined to be 0.79, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Clinical characteristics data were collected from medical records. Stroke subtypes were classified into categories such as embolic, thrombotic, lacunar, and uncertain. 30 Current fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels were measured using an oxidase enzymatic method. FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method. FBS was categorized as: Normal (<100 mg/dL), Medium (100–125 mg/dL), and High (≥126 mg/dL), based on ADA guidelines. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Additionally, historical FBS and BMI data from 6 to 12 months prior were collected for comparison. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia were defined based on physician diagnoses. Data collection procedure Data were collected through face-to-face interviews conducted by nurses specializing in stroke care, using the structured questionnaire described previously. These nurses underwent comprehensive training encompassing the study objectives, questionnaire content, ethical considerations, and standardized procedures for data collection. All the completed questionnaires were reviewed daily by senior investigators to ensure data accuracy, completeness, and consistency. The participants provided information regarding their stroke history, date of diagnosis, clinical manifestations, lifestyle-related risk factors, and family history of chronic diseases. Physical examination was conducted to assess height, weight, and blood pressure. Clinical data—including stroke subtypes, FBS, BMI, and comorbid conditions—were extracted directly from medical records. Each participant was followed for a period of 12 months from the date of the initial ischemic stroke diagnosis. Recurrent stroke events were identified through clinical documentation and follow-up visits within this period. Data analysis Data were analyzed using STATA 17 software (Serial number: 501706420821).for univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. The chi-square test compared the distribution of all variables in the univariate analysis. Univariate odd ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors with a significant difference ( p-value < 0.2). 29 Factors meeting this criterion were included in the multivariate analysis, which used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) to identify significant factors associated with recurrent stroke. A p - value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results From a total of 516 eligible first-ever stroke patients initially identified from the hospital database, 300 patients who met all inclusion criteria were included in this study. The mean age was 45.4 years (SD = 15.1) in the case group and 50.6 years (SD = 6.5) in the control group. The male-to-female ratio was 1.17:1 among cases and 1.94:1 among controls. Figure 1 illustrates the detailed recruitment and participant selection processes, showing reasons for exclusion such as non-office workers (n=182), loss to follow-up (n=31), and patients with more than one stroke recurrence (n=3). Figure 1. Flowchart of participant selection process (patients with more than one stroke recurrence were excluded). A total of 300 participants were included in the study: 100 patients with recurrent stroke and 200 controls without recurrence. The mean age of 43.1 years in the case group and 44.2 years in the control group. In terms of sex distribution, 54.0% of the cases and 66.0% of the controls were male, corresponding to male-to-female ratios of 1.17:1 and 1.94:1, respectively. Most participants were married (64.0% in cases and 57.0% in controls). Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found in sex, marital status, fasting blood sugar (FBS), body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, smoking, alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, interpersonal relationships at the workplace, and workplace support for health. The baseline characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1 . Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study participants (n=300). Characteristics Case (n = 100) Control (n = 200) p-value n (%) n (%) Age .28 25-40 years 66 (66.0) 119 (59.5) 41-60 years 34 (34.0) 81 (40.5) M + SD 45.4 ± 15.1 50.6 ± 6.5 Gender <.05 Male 54 (54.0) 132 (66.0) Female 46 (46.0) 68 (34.0) Male-to-Female Ratio 1.94:1 1.17:1 Marital status <.01 Single 18 (18.0) 70 (35.0) Married 64 (64.0) 114 (57.0) Widowed/Divorced 18 (18.0) 16 (8.0) Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) <.01 Normal 21 (21.4) 59 (29.5) Medium 34 (34.7) 100 (50.0) Hight 43 (43.9) 41 (20.5) Body Mass Index (BMI) <.01 Normal weight 33 (33.0) 107 (53.5) Overweight 67 (67.0) 93 (46.5) Hypertension <.05 Yes 67 (67.0) 109 (54.5) No 33 (33.0) 91 (45.5) Diabetes mellitus <.05 Yes 50 (50.0) 74 (37.0) No 50 (50.0) 126 (63.0) Dyslipidemia <.05 Yes 61 (61.0) 94 (47.0) No 39 (39.0) 106 (53.0) Smoking status <.05 Current smoker 47 (47.0) 69 (34.5) Non-smoker 53 (53.0) 131 (65.5) Drinking status <.01 Current drinker 55 (55.0) 54 (27.0) Non-drinker 45 (45.0) 146 (73.0) Preventive health behavior .51 Low 42 (42.0) 92 (46.0) High 58 (58.0) 108 (54.0) Sedentary lifestyle <.01 Low 46 (46.0) 152 (76.0) High 54 (54.0) 48 (24.0) Interpersonal relationship at workplace <.01 Low 51 (51.0) 67 (33.5) High 49 (49.0) 133 (66.5) Job characteristics .17 Low 42 (42.0) 99 (49.5) High 58 (58.0) 101 (50.5) Physical work environment Light .57 Enough 50 (50.0) 93 (46.5) Poor/too much 50 (50.0) 107 (53.5) Noise .86 Yes 33 (33.0) 68 (34.0) No 67 (67.0) 132 (66.0) Heat and cold stress .46 Yes 24 (24.0) 56 (28.0) No 76 (76.0) 144 (72.0) Workplace support for health <.01 Yes 54 (54.0) 74 (37.0) No 46 (46.0) 126 (63.0) a chi-squared for proportions. Based on the significant differences in the baseline characteristics, specific variables were selected for inclusion in the multivariate analysis model. The results, presented in Table 2 , showed that female gender (aOR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.01, 3.29), high FBS (aOR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.66, 8.27), drinking status (aOR = 3.63, 95% CI: 2.01, 6.54), sedentary lifestyle (aOR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.50, 5.13), and lack of workplace support for health (aOR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.13, 3.63) were significantly associated with recurrent stroke among the working-age adults. Table 2. Logistic regression of predictors for recurrent stroke (n=300). Predictors Crude OR (95% CI) p -value Adjusted OR (95% CI) * p -value Gender (Female vs. Male * ) 1.65 (1.01, 2.70) <.05 1.83 (1.01, 3.29) <.05 Marital status (vs. Single * ) .09 Married 2.18 (1.20, 3.98) <.05 1.65 (0.81, 3.36) .17 Widowed/Divorced 4.38 (1.87, 10.23) <.01 3.13 (1.09, 8.94) <.05 Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) (vs. Normal * ) <.01 Medium 0.96 (0.51, 1.80) .89 1.05 (0.50, 2.18) .90 High 3.08 (1.60, 5.93) <.01 3.70 (1.66, 8.27) <.01 Body Mass Index (BMI) (Normal vs. Overweight * ) 2.34 (1.42, 3.85) <.01 1.76 (0.96, 3.21) .07 Hypertension (Yes vs. No * ) 1.70 (1.03, 2.80) <.05 1.83 (0.99, 3.37) .05 Diabetes mellitus (Yes vs. No * ) 1.70 (1.05, 2.77) <.05 1.38 (0.76, 2.50) .29 Dyslipidemia (Yes vs. No * ) 1.76 (1.08, 2.87) <.05 0.80 (0.43, 1.49) .49 Smoking status (Current vs. Non-smoker * ) 1.68 (1.03, 2.75) <.01 1.57 (0.87, 2.85) .14 Drinking status (Current vs. Non-drinker * ) 3.30 (2.00, 5.46) <.01 3.63 (2.01, 6.54) <.01 Sedentary Lifestyle (High vs. Low * ) 2.70 (1.62, 4.49) <.01 2.77 (1.50, 5.13) <.01 Interpersonal relationship at workplace (High vs. Low * ) 0.48 (0.30, 0.79) <.01 0.56 (0.31, 1.01) .05 Workplace support for health (No vs. Yes * ) 2.00 (1.23, 3.25) <.01 2.02 (1.13, 3.63) <.05 * Adjusted for gender, marital status, FBS, BMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, smoking, drinking, sedentary lifestyle, interpersonal relationships at the workplace, and workplace support for health. Various factors contributed to recurrent stroke were analyzed into two age groups: individuals aged 25-40 years (early-career workers) and those aged 41-60 years (mid-to-late-career workers) ( Table 3 ). Among early-career workers, the most significant factors influencing recurrent stroke were being widowed/divorced (aOR = 7.62, 95% CI: 1.87, 31.12), drinking status (aOR = 4.28, 95% CI: 1.87, 9.80), sedentary lifestyle (aOR = 4.27, 95% CI: 1.84, 9.88), high FBS (aOR = 4.10, 95% CI: 1.32, 12.77), female gender (aOR = 3.28, 95% CI: 1.49, 7.25), being married (aOR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.02, 6.55), and lack of workplace support for health (aOR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.23). Interestingly, having high interpersonal relationships at the workplace appeared to have a protective effect against recurrent stroke (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.76). On the other hand, among mid-to-late-career workers, only drinking status was found to be associated with recurrent stroke (aOR = 3.38, 95% CI: 1.17, 9.72). Table 3. Logistic regression of predictors for recurrent stroke between aged 25-40 (n=66) years and 41-60 years (n=34). Predictors Cases n (%) Aged 25-40 year (n = 66) Cases n (%) Aged 41-60 year (n = 34) Crude OR (95% CI) p-value Adjusted OR (95% CI) p-value Crude OR (95% CI) p-value Adjusted OR (95% CI) p-value Gender (Female vs. Male) 28 (42.42) 2.89 (1.55, 5.39) <.01 3.28 (1.49, 7.25) <.01 18 (52.94) 0.52 (0.21, 1.30) .16 0.45 (0.14, 1.50) .19 Marital status (vs. Single * ) <.01 .83 Married 40 (60.61) 3.44 (1.60, 7.40) <.01 2.59 (1.02, 6.55) <.05 24 (70.59) 0.96 (0.35, 2.64) .94 0.71 (0.20, 2.56) .60 Widowed/Divorced 10 (15.20) 9.20 (3.14, 26.98) <.01 7.62 (1.87, 31.12) <.01 5 (14.71) 0.86 (0.17, 4.23) .85 0.55 (0.06, 5.00) .60 Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) (vs. Normal * ) <.05 <.05 Medium 20 (30.30) 0.88 (0.41, 1.88) .74 1.60 (0.62, 4.17) .33 15 (44.12) 0.99 (0.31, 3.20) .99 0.76 (0.17, 3.41) .72 High 20 (30.30) 2.62 (1.13, 6.08) <.05 4.10 (1.32, 12.77) <.05 15 (44.12) 4.33 (1.47, 12.79) <.01 4.07 (0.83, 19.98) .08 Body Mass Index (BMI) (Normal vs. Overweight * ) 35 (53.03) 2.25 (1.21, 4.19) <.05 1.95 (0.85, 4.44) .11 13 (38.24) 2.71 (1.13, 6.52) <.05 1.53 (0.51, 4.58) .45 Hypertension (Yes vs. No * ) 30 (45.45) 1.47 (0.80, 2.70) .22 1.87 (0.84, 4.15) .12 17 (50.00) 2.89 (1.08, 7.78) <.05 2.44 (0.68, 8.79) .16 Diabetes mellitus (Yes vs. No * ) 28 (42.42) 1.61 (0.88, 2.96) .12 1.25 (0.56, 2.81) .59 17 (50.00) 1.77 (0.78, 4.04) .18 2.08 (0.64, 6.77) .22 Dyslipidemia (Yes vs. No * ) 25 (37.88) 1.44 (0.78, 2.63) .24 0.53 (0.23, 1.23) .13 18 (52.94) 2.72 (1.15, 6.40) <.05 1.08 (0.28, 4.18) .91 Smoking status (Current vs. Non-smoker * ) 27 (40.91) 1.21 (0.66, 2.24) .54 1.15 (0.50, 2.60) .75 16 (47.06) 3.01 (1.31, 6.89) <.01 2.75 (0.99, 7.62) .05 Drinking status (Current vs. Non-drinker * ) 36 (54.55) 2.83 (1.52, 5.27) <.01 4.28 (1.87, 9.80) <.01 19 (55.88) 4.24 (1.79, 10.01) <.01 3.38 (1.17, 9.72) <.05 Sedentary Lifestyle (High vs. Low * ) 35 (53.03) 3.41 (1.81, 6.42) <.01 4.27 (1.84, 9.88) <.01 13 (38.24) 1.57 (0.63, 3.90) .33 1.57 (0.43, 5.80) .50 Interpersonal relationship at workplace (High vs. Low * ) 25 (37.88) 0.45 (0.24, 0.84) <.05 0.34 (0.15, 0.76) <.01 21 (61.76) 0.48 (0.21, 1.09) .08 0.96 (0.33, 2.80) .94 Workplace support for health (No vs. Yes * ) 29 (43.94) 2.32 (1.25, 4.29) <.01 2.35 (1.05, 5.23) <.05 16 (47.06) 1.66 (0.74, 3.73) .22 2.47 (0.81, 7.53) .11 * Adjusted for gender, marital status, FBS, BMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, smoking, drinking, sedentary lifestyle, interpersonal relationships at the workplace, and workplace support for health. Discussion Working-age adults in Bangkok, Thailand, who experience a first-ever stroke face a heightened risk of recurrence, largely driven by lifestyle and occupational factors. This investigation sought to identify key determinants of recurrent stroke within this demographic. Findings indicated that female gender, elevated fasting blood sugar (FBS), alcohol use, physical inactivity, and insufficient workplace health support were significant contributors. Notably, the influence of these factors varied between early-career and mid-to-late-career individuals. Among these, female gender emerged as a significant predictor of recurrent stroke among working-age adults, with a notably stronger association observed in early-career individuals. In contrast, no meaningful link was found among those in mid-to-late career stages. Previous research suggests that younger urban women may be particularly susceptible to certain risk factors, including unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, environmental exposures, and occupational stress. 31 – 35 These disparities likely stem from such influences. Further investigation into the interplay of gender and contributing variables is essential to deepen understanding and inform the development of targeted prevention strategies. Building on the role of sociodemographic factors, marital status was a notable factor influencing stroke recurrence among working-age adults, particularly those in the early stages of their careers. Women who were married, widowed, or divorced faced a higher risk compared to their single counterparts; a pattern not observed among mid-to-late-career individuals. Prior research suggests that marital transitions can significantly impact stress levels and health-related behaviors, potentially increasing vulnerability to stroke. 36 – 40 This finding underscores the importance of considering psychosocial stressors and their relationship to stroke risk among working-age populations. Adding to the physiological risk profile, elevated fasting blood sugar (FBS) was significantly linked to recurrent stroke among early-career workers. Prior research has shown that individuals with prediabetes or FBS levels exceeding 7 mmol/L, even without a diabetes diagnosis, face increased risk of stroke recurrence. 41 – 44 In contrast, this association was not evident among mid-to-late-career individuals, suggesting that glycemic status may be a less influential factor in older age groups, where other variables likely play a larger role. These results highlight the role of metabolic health in stroke prevention and emphasize the need for early screening and intervention to manage glycemic levels in this demographic. Behavioral risk factors further illustrated the complexity of recurrence patterns. Current alcohol consumption was associated with an elevated risk of recurrent stroke across both early- and mid-to-late-career workers. Although prior studies have established this link in older adults, 8 its relevance to the working-age population remains less well defined. Emerging evidence, however, supports heavy drinking as a modifiable risk factor in this group. 45 – 48 Incorporating alcohol-related risk reduction into prevention strategies is essential. Healthcare professionals should raise awareness about the dangers of excessive intake and encourage healthier behavioral choices. Closely tied to behavioral habits, a sedentary lifestyle was significantly linked to recurrent stroke among early-career workers, while no such association was found in their older counterparts. Research suggests that younger urban employees often engage in prolonged inactivity due to occupational demands, screen-based leisure, and lifestyle habits. 49 – 52 Vilhelmson et al. 53 further reported that this group dedicates more time to work-related tasks and digital entertainment, whereas older adults tend to participate more in outdoor and physical activities. Encouraging regular movement through wellness programs and scheduled activity breaks may help mitigate this risk. Beyond individual behaviors, organizational factors also played a crucial role. Lack of workplace health support was significantly associated with recurrent stroke among early-career workers, a pattern not observed in mid-to-late-career individuals. Prior studies suggest that younger employees often face heightened job-related pressures—such as long hours, competitive environments, and limited organizational backing—which can indirectly lead to unhealthy behaviors and elevated stroke risk. 54 – 56 Stressful work settings have been linked to poor diet, reduced physical activity, excessive alcohol use, sleep deprivation, and chronic stress. 57 , 58 Additionally, the drive for career advancement may cause younger workers to overlook early health warnings and neglect self-care. In contrast, older employees tend to manage stress more effectively and engage in consistent health-promoting behaviors, reducing their vulnerability. 59 Wellness programs and stress management initiatives tailored to the needs of younger staff may foster healthier routines and help prevent stroke recurrence. Complementing the organizational context, workplace interpersonal relationships were significantly associated with recurrent stroke risk among working-age adults, serving as a protective factor particularly for those in the early stages of their careers. This association was not evident among mid-to-late-career workers. Supportive social connections in the workplace may help buffer stress, enhance mental well-being, and improve job satisfaction, thereby reducing health risks such as stroke. 60 , 61 Given that early-career individuals often face the pressures of establishing themselves professionally, a positive work environment can play a critical role in mitigating stress-related health outcomes. 62 In contrast, more experienced workers may rely on established coping strategies and emotional resilience, diminishing the impact of social dynamics on their well-being. 63 Designing interventions that foster inclusive, low-stress, and collaborative workplace cultures may support long-term prevention goals. It is also worth noting that several commonly recognized risk factors—such as BMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and interpersonal relationships in the workplace—did not show significant associations with stroke recurrence in this study. While this may reflect true non-association within this specific population, it is also possible that subgroup distributions, limited sample sizes, or low variability in exposure contributed to the lack of significance. These findings should be interpreted with caution, and further studies with larger and more balanced samples are warranted to explore these factors more comprehensively. Synthesizing these findings through the lens of the socio-ecological model 64 provides a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between personal behaviors and environmental influences in urban settings. Lifestyle factors such as alcohol use and physical inactivity intersect with broader elements like workplace culture and access to healthcare services. These multilayered interactions underscore the need for integrated interventions that address both individual and systemic determinants of health. Efforts to reduce recurrent stroke among urban working-age adults should move beyond personal risk factors to encompass the wider urban context. This includes fostering healthier routines, strengthening organizational support, and improving service accessibility. Aligning prevention strategies with socio-ecological principles enables healthcare professionals and policymakers to collaboratively shape healthier urban environments and ease the burden of stroke recurrence in vulnerable groups. Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the use of a single-site hospital sample may restrict the generalizability of the results. Although the study offers meaningful insights into an urban population, caution is warranted when applying these outcomes to other geographic areas or healthcare contexts. Future research should aim to include larger, more diverse samples drawn from multiple institutions or regions to enhance external validity. Second, the lack of detailed data on medication usage, physical activity, occupational stress, and environmental conditions limits a comprehensive assessment of contributing factors. These elements are likely to play significant roles in stroke risk and recurrence among working-age adults. Gathering more robust data on these variables in future investigations would deepen understanding and inform more effective prevention strategies. Lastly, the interplay among risk factors—such as comorbidities and behavioral patterns—was not fully explored. Investigating how these variables interact could provide a more nuanced view of recurrence risk and support the development of multifaceted interventions. Conclusion In conclusion, this study identified the key factors associated with recurrent stroke among working-age adults in urban Bangkok. The findings point to high fasting blood sugar, alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of workplace health support as significant contributors to recurrence risk. These results underscore the critical need to address modifiable behavioral and occupational risk factors through targeted, age-sensitive prevention strategies. Healthcare providers should prioritize evidence-based interventions, including lifestyle modifications, alcohol reduction, increased physical activity, stress management, and routine health screenings. Promoting multidisciplinary collaboration and implementing workplace wellness initiatives can further strengthen stroke prevention efforts. By addressing these key risk factors, it is possible to reduce recurrence rates, minimize long-term disability, and enhance the overall quality of life for urban working-age populations. Declarations Ethical considerations The study obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand (Approval no. 110/64 E). The approval was granted on August 2, 2021, and is valid until August 1, 2022. Consent statement Before participation, all participants were informed about the study and their right to voluntary participation. They provided written informed consent prior to being enrolled in the study. All collected data was kept confidential and anonymous, ensuring the privacy of all participants. This study adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring ethical conduct. Author contribution statement Yupha Wongrostrai contributed to conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing. Araya Chiangkhong contributed to conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing. Charin Suwanwong contributed to conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing. Anon Khunakorncharatphong contributed to conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, software, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing. Additional information No additional information is available for this paper. Data availability statement Ethical and security consideration The data consists of personal medical records of patients, and access is restricted to protect patient confidentiality. To apply for access to the data, readers or reviewers must submit a formal request including the purpose of the data use, a detailed research plan, and proof of ethical approval from a recognized institutional review board (IRB). Access will be granted only under the condition that the data will be used solely for the approved research purposes, and all necessary measures to ensure data privacy and security are in place. Applications should be directed to the corresponding author, and each request will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Navamindradhiraj University Research Fund, which made this study possible. References 1. Katan M, Luft A: Global burden of stroke. Semin. Neurol. 2018; 38 : 208–211. Publisher Full Text 2. Wang S, Shen B, Wu M, et al. : Effects of socioeconomic status on risk of ischemic stroke: a case-control study in the Guangzhou population. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 : 648. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Addo J, Ayerbe L, Mohan KM, et al. : Socioeconomic status and stroke: an updated review. Stroke. 2012; 43 : 1186–1191. Publisher Full Text 4. Chantkran W, Chaisakul J, Rangsin R, et al. : Prevalence of and factors associated with stroke in hypertensive patients in Thailand from 2014 to 2018: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11 : 17614. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Suwanwela NC: Stroke epidemiology in Thailand. J. Stroke. 2014; 16 : 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Liu H, Tong M, Cao M, et al. : The U-shaped association between urbanization and post-stroke disability: a nationwide longitudinal study in China. Glob. Transit. 2023; 5 : 1–9. Publisher Full Text 7. Chompon J, Poonphol S: Related factors of recurrent stroke among stroke patients in Rajavithi hospital. Thai J. Neurol. 2022; 38 : 34–36. (In Thai). 8. Han J, Mao W, Ni J, et al. : Rate and determinants of recurrence at 1 year and 5 years after stroke in a low-income population in rural China. Front. Neurol. 2020; 11 : 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Khanevski AN, Bjerkreim AT, Novotny V, et al. : Recurrent ischemic stroke: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2019; 140 : 3–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Zhong W, Geng N, Wang P, et al. : Prevalence, causes and risk factors of hospital readmissions after acute stroke and transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol. Sci. 2016; 37 : 1195–1202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Pei L, Zang X, Wang Y, et al. : Factors associated with activities of daily living among the disabled elders with stroke. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2016; 3 : 29–34. Publisher Full Text 12. Zhang Y, Guan Y, Zhang Y, et al. : Recurrence rate and relevant associated factors of stroke among patients with small artery occlusion in northern China. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9 : 2834. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Chaudhary D, Anyaehie M, Demiraj F, et al. : Comparison of long-term outcomes and associated factors between younger and older rural ischemic stroke patients. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11 : 1430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Perera KS, de Sa Boasquevisque D , Rao-Melacini P, et al. : Evaluating rates of recurrent ischemic stroke among young adults with embolic stroke of undetermined source: the Young ESUS Longitudinal Cohort Study. JAMA Neurol. 2022; 79 : 450–458. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Edwards JD, Kapoor A, Linkewich E, et al. : Return to work after young stroke: a systematic review. Int. J. Stroke. 2018; 13 : 243–256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Vesting M, Tufvesson B, Iwarsson S: Indicators for return to work after stroke and the importance of work for subjective well-being and life satisfaction. J. Rehabil. Med. 2003; 35 : 127–131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 17. Liangruenrom N, Craike M, Biddle SJH, et al. : Correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in the Thai population: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 :414. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Suwanwela NC: Stroke epidemiology in Thailand. J. Stroke. 2014; 16 (1):1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Wu X, Zou Y, You S, et al. : Distribution of risk factors of ischemic stroke in Chinese young adults and its correlation with prognosis. BMC Neurol. 2022; 22 : 26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Maric J, Aleksandra D, Antonic B, et al. : The effects of open space on reducing workplace stress: case study of business park in the post-socialist urban setting. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (1): 336. Publisher Full Text 21. Sime Y, Hailesilassie H, Alenko A: Work-related stress and associated factors among employees of Hawassa industrial park, Southern Ethiopia: an institutional based cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2022; 22 : 387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 22. Coull AJ, Rothwell PM: Underestimation of the early risk of recurrent stroke: evidence of the need for a standard definition.Stroke.2004 Aug; 35 (8): 1925–1929. Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract | 23. Vilhelmson B, Thulin E, Elldér E: Is ageing becoming more active? Exploring cohort-wise changes in everyday time use among the older population in Sweden. Eur. J. Ageing. 2022; 19 : 447–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 24. Leu J, Rebello SA, Sargent GM, et al. : Working young adults’ engagement with public and workplace health promotion efforts in Singapore: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2024; 19 (10): e0309983. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Shani SD, Varma RP, Sarma SP, et al. : Treatment in a stroke unit and risk factor control reduce recurrent stroke. Cerebrovasc. Dis. Extra. 2022; 12 : 85–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 26. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, et al. : guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021; 52 (2021): e364–e467. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, et al. : Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017; 14 : 75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Hackman JR, Oldham GR: Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975; 60 : 159–170. Publisher Full Text 29. Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Recio-Saucedo A, et al. : Characteristics of shift work and their impact on employee performance and wellbeing: A literature review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016; 57 : 12–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Amarenco P, Bogousslavsky J, Caplan LR, et al. : Classification of stroke subtypes. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2009; 27 : 493–501. Publisher Full Text 31. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR: The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann. Intern. Med. 1993; 118 : 201–210. Publisher Full Text 32. Chung JY, Lee BN, Kim YS, et al. : Sex differences and risk factors in recurrent ischemic stroke. Front. Neurol. 2023; 14 : 1028431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Boot E, Ekker MS, Kittner S, et al. : Ischemic stroke in young adults: a global perspective. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2020; 91 : 411–417. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Chiangkhong A, Suwanwong C, Wongrostrai Y: Lifestyle, clinical, and occupational risk factors of recurrent stroke among the working-age group: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023; 9 : e13949. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Ho JSY, Jou E, Tan BYQ, et al. : Air pollution and ischemic stroke. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 2022; 25 : S26–S34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. Schultz WM, Hayek SS, Tahhan AS, et al. : Marital status and outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2017; 6 : e005890. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 37. Floud S, Balkwill A, Canoy D, et al. : Marital status and ischemic heart disease incidence and mortality in women: a large prospective study. BMC Med. 2014; 12 : 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Honjo K, Iso H, Ikeda A, et al. : Marital transition and risk of stroke: how living arrangement and employment status modify associations. Stroke. 2016; 47 : 991–998. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Dhindsa DS, Khambhati J, Schultz WM, et al. : Marital status and outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2020; 30 : 215–220. Publisher Full Text 40. Wang Y, Jiao Y, Nie J, et al. : Sex differences in the association between marital status and the risk of cardiovascular, cancer, and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 7,881,040 individuals. Glob. Health Res. Policy. 2020; 5 : 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 41. Guo Y, Wang G, Jing J, et al. : Stress hyperglycemia may have higher risk of stroke recurrence than previously diagnosed diabetes mellitus. Aging. 2021; 13 : 9108–9118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 42. Fonville S, Zandbergen AAM, Koudstaal PJ, et al. : Prediabetes in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: prevalence, risk and clinical management. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2014; 37 : 393–400. Publisher Full Text 43. Liu Z, Lin X, Lin W, et al. : A J-shaped curve relationship between baseline fasting blood glucose and 1-year stroke recurrence in non-diabetic patients with acute cerebral infarction in Xi’an, China: a multicenter observational cohort study. Front. Neurol. 2022; 12 : 698793. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 44. Zhang L, Li X, Wolfe CDA, et al. : Diabetes as an independent risk factor for stroke recurrence in ischemic stroke patients: an updated meta-analysis. Neuroepidemiology. 2021; 55 : 427–435. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 45. O’Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Rangarajan S, et al. : Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet. 2016; 388 : 761–775. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Aigner A, Grittner U, Rolfs A, et al. : Contribution of established stroke risk factors to the burden of stroke in young adults. Stroke. 2017; 48 : 1744–1751. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Chung J, Lee S, Choi E, et al. : Cumulative alcohol consumption burden and the risk of stroke in young adults: a nationwide population-based study. Neurology. 2023; 100 : e505–e515. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 48. Larsson SC, Wallin A, Wolk A, et al. : Differing association of alcohol consumption with different stroke types: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016; 14 : 178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 49. Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, Hendriksen IJM: Correlates of sedentary time in different age groups: results from a large cross sectional Dutch survey. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16 : 1121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 50. Huang Z, Liu Y, Zhou Y: Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among young adults: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Healthcare (Basel). 2022; 10 : 1480. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 51. Zheng C, Huang WY, Sheridan S, et al. : COVID-19 pandemic brings a sedentary lifestyle in young adults: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 : 6035. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 52. Leu J, Rebello SA, Sargent GM, et al. : Hard work, long hours, and Singaporean young adults’ health–a qualitative study. Front. Public Health. 2023; 11 : 1082581. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 53. Vilhelmson B, Thulin E, Elldér E: Is ageing becoming more active? Exploring cohort-wise changes in everyday time use among the older population in Sweden. Eur. J. Ageing. 2022; 19 : 447–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 54. Zhang K, Huang S, Feng D, et al. : Sedentary behavioral studies of young and middle-aged adults with hypertension in the framework of behavioral epidemiology: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19 : 16796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 55. Chu L: Impact of long working hours on health based on observations in China. BMC Public Health. 2021; 21 : 1347. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 56. Griep RH, Nobre AA, Alves MGM, et al. : Job strain and unhealthy lifestyle: results from the baseline cohort study, Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). BMC Public Health. 2015; 15 : 309. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 57. Ji A, Lou H, Lou P, et al. : Interactive effect of sleep duration and sleep quality on risk of stroke: an 8-year follow-up study in China. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10 : 8690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 58. Reddin C, Murphy R, Hankey GJ, et al. : Association of psychosocial stress with risk of acute stroke. JAMA Netw. Open. 2022; 5 : e2244836. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 59. Hsu H: Age differences in work stress, exhaustion, well-being, and related factors from an ecological perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16 : 50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 60. Kun A, Gadanecz P: Workplace happiness, well-being and their relationship with psychological capital: a study of Hungarian teachers. Curr. Psychol. 2022; 41 : 185–199. Publisher Full Text 61. Benitez M, Orgambídez A, Cantero-Sánchez FJ, et al. : Harmonious passion at work: personal resource for coping with the negative relationship between burnout and intrinsic job satisfaction in service employees. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023; 20 : 1010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 62. Lindgren I, Brogårdh C, Pessah-Rasmussen H, et al. : Work conditions, support, and changing personal priorities are perceived important for return to work and for stay at work after stroke – a qualitative study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2022; 44 : 2500–2506. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 63. Kermott CA, Johnson RE, Sood R, et al. : Is higher resilience predictive of lower stress and better mental health among corporate executives? PLoS One. 2019; 14 : e0218092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 64. Kousoulis AA, Goldie I: A visualization of a socio-ecological model for urban public mental health approaches. Front. Public Health. 2021; 9 : 654011. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 29 Nov 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 2 Behavioral Science Research Institute, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand 3 Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Yupha Wongrostrai Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Araya Chiangkhong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Charin Suwanwong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Anon Khunakorncharatphong Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was financially supported by Navamindradhiraj University Research Fund-RESEARCH.NMU 62/2564. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 05 Jun 2025, 13:1445 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.3 version 2 Revised Published: 23 May 2025, 13:1445 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.2 version 1 Published: 29 Nov 2024, 13:1445 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.1 Copyright © 2025 Wongrostrai Y et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Wongrostrai Y, Chiangkhong A, Suwanwong C and Khunakorncharatphong A. Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154968.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 05 Jun 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rudd A. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r390104 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-390104 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Jun 2025 Anthony Rudd , King’s College, London, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r390104 Previous reviews have highlighted some of the concerns about the paper and these have already been addressed satisfactorily by the authors. The data presented are of interest, but the limitations of the methodology need to be discussed in more detail. ... Continue reading READ ALL Previous reviews have highlighted some of the concerns about the paper and these have already been addressed satisfactorily by the authors. The data presented are of interest, but the limitations of the methodology need to be discussed in more detail. It is acknowledged that the sample is just from one hospital and is not population based and there are limited data on medication compliance, but these are very important issues that do detract from the overall message. The control group are selected from patients attending the hospital for follow-up. By definition therefore they will be people who are complying with at least some aspects of stroke prevention compared to patients who do not attend for follow-up. The lack of data on use of medication (especially anti-platelets, anticoagulants and statins) and the lack of data on whether risk factors (especially hypertension) have actually been controlled are also significant weaknesses that need stronger acknowledgement. These are the factors that previous studies on stroke recurrence have shown to be of particular importance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Stroke management and epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rudd A. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r390104 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-390104 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r389967 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-389967 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Jun 2025 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r389967 I have reviewed the revisions made to the manuscript and I fully accept the ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reviewed the revisions made to the manuscript and I fully accept the changes. I have no further comments. Thank you for your hard work on this manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r389967 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-389967 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 May 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179234.r386824 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v2#referee-response-386824 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 May 2025 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179234.r386824 Revision 2: We would like to thank the authors for their initial revisions and the improvements made to enhance the manuscript quality. The following suggestions are provided to further strengthen the study: 1. Clarify the Type ... Continue reading READ ALL Revision 2: We would like to thank the authors for their initial revisions and the improvements made to enhance the manuscript quality. The following suggestions are provided to further strengthen the study: 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Suggestion: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution of stroke types in the study population. 2. Strengthen the Introduction Primary Stroke Type Onset: Define the most common type of stroke onset in the study population and provide its exact frequency (e.g., "Ischemic stroke accounted for 70% of initial strokes in our cohort"). Recurrence Definition: Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome (e.g., "The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke within 12 months of the index event"). 3. Refine the Methodology Section Definition of Recurrent Stroke: If the study includes ischemic stroke, ensure the definition of recurrent stroke aligns with established criteria. If other stroke types are included, add appropriate definitions for each. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Rationale for Exclusion: Provide a clear explanation for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Follow-Up Timeline: Mention the duration of follow-up. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Add Details: Include the number and percentage of cases in each variable according to group subtype. As well, specify which factors were adjusted for in multivariate analyses. Improve the Discussion Section Focus on Main Aim: Avoid limiting the discussion to age-related risk factors unless it is central to the study’s objectives. Instead, focus on factors directly linked to the primary aim. Address Non-Significant Findings: Acknowledge that non-significant results may relate to patient distribution. Revise Repetitive Language Avoid "Our Study" . Ensure paragraphs flow logically by connecting ideas. Simplify the Conclusion Avoid citing odds ratios (OR) in the conclusion. Instead, highlight the major risk factors identified. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179234.r386824 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v2#referee-response-386824 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Aug 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 09 Aug 2025 Author Response 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types ... Continue reading 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution. Response: Thank you. We have clarified in both the Methods section and Table 1 that the study includes both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The distribution is now stated as follows: “Among the participants, 67.8% had ischemic stroke, while 32.2% had hemorrhagic stroke.” 2. Strengthen the Introduction Comment: Define the most common type of stroke onset and its exact frequency. Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome. Response: The Introduction section has been revised to reflect that ischemic stroke is the most common type among working-age adults in Thailand. The frequency is specified. We also explicitly defined the outcome of interest: “The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) occurring within 12 months of the index event.” 3. Refine the Methodology Section Comment: Align the definition of recurrent stroke with established criteria and define all included stroke types. Response: We have revised the Methods section to define recurrent stroke according to the criteria by Coull & Rothwell (2004), and provided definitions for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types as used in the data source. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Comment: Provide a clear rationale for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a sentence to explain that TIA patients were excluded due to the lack of permanent neurological deficits and difficulties in confirming recurrence, which could bias the outcome measurement. 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Comment: Indicate the duration of follow-up. Response: The Methods section now specifies that the follow-up period for identifying recurrent stroke was 12 months post-index stroke event. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Comment: Include number and percentage of cases by group. Indicate adjusted variables in the multivariate analysis. Response: Table 3 has been revised to include both the number and percentage of cases in each category. A footnote has been added to indicate that multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, gender, alcohol consumption, and workplace health support. 7. Improve the Discussion Section Comment: Do not overemphasize age-related risk factors unless central to the aim. Acknowledge possible reasons for non-significant findings. Response: The Discussion section has been updated to focus more on occupational and lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol use, sedentary behavior, workplace support) and their implications. We now also acknowledge that non-significant findings may be due to small subgroup sizes or confounding factors. 8. Revise Repetitive Language Comment: Avoid repetitive use of "Our study" and ensure logical flow between paragraphs. Response: The manuscript has been revised for smoother narrative flow, and redundant phrasing (e.g., “Our study”) has been reduced. Paragraph transitions were edited to enhance clarity and continuity. 9. Simplify the Conclusion Comment: Avoid including odds ratios (ORs) in the conclusion. Instead, summarize key findings. Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to exclude all statistical measures such as ORs. The final paragraph now summarizes the major identified risk factors and highlights their practical relevance for intervention and prevention programs. 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution. Response: Thank you. We have clarified in both the Methods section and Table 1 that the study includes both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The distribution is now stated as follows: “Among the participants, 67.8% had ischemic stroke, while 32.2% had hemorrhagic stroke.” 2. Strengthen the Introduction Comment: Define the most common type of stroke onset and its exact frequency. Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome. Response: The Introduction section has been revised to reflect that ischemic stroke is the most common type among working-age adults in Thailand. The frequency is specified. We also explicitly defined the outcome of interest: “The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) occurring within 12 months of the index event.” 3. Refine the Methodology Section Comment: Align the definition of recurrent stroke with established criteria and define all included stroke types. Response: We have revised the Methods section to define recurrent stroke according to the criteria by Coull & Rothwell (2004), and provided definitions for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types as used in the data source. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Comment: Provide a clear rationale for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a sentence to explain that TIA patients were excluded due to the lack of permanent neurological deficits and difficulties in confirming recurrence, which could bias the outcome measurement. 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Comment: Indicate the duration of follow-up. Response: The Methods section now specifies that the follow-up period for identifying recurrent stroke was 12 months post-index stroke event. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Comment: Include number and percentage of cases by group. Indicate adjusted variables in the multivariate analysis. Response: Table 3 has been revised to include both the number and percentage of cases in each category. A footnote has been added to indicate that multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, gender, alcohol consumption, and workplace health support. 7. Improve the Discussion Section Comment: Do not overemphasize age-related risk factors unless central to the aim. Acknowledge possible reasons for non-significant findings. Response: The Discussion section has been updated to focus more on occupational and lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol use, sedentary behavior, workplace support) and their implications. We now also acknowledge that non-significant findings may be due to small subgroup sizes or confounding factors. 8. Revise Repetitive Language Comment: Avoid repetitive use of "Our study" and ensure logical flow between paragraphs. Response: The manuscript has been revised for smoother narrative flow, and redundant phrasing (e.g., “Our study”) has been reduced. Paragraph transitions were edited to enhance clarity and continuity. 9. Simplify the Conclusion Comment: Avoid including odds ratios (ORs) in the conclusion. Instead, summarize key findings. Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to exclude all statistical measures such as ORs. The final paragraph now summarizes the major identified risk factors and highlights their practical relevance for intervention and prevention programs. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Aug 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 09 Aug 2025 Author Response 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types ... Continue reading 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution. Response: Thank you. We have clarified in both the Methods section and Table 1 that the study includes both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The distribution is now stated as follows: “Among the participants, 67.8% had ischemic stroke, while 32.2% had hemorrhagic stroke.” 2. Strengthen the Introduction Comment: Define the most common type of stroke onset and its exact frequency. Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome. Response: The Introduction section has been revised to reflect that ischemic stroke is the most common type among working-age adults in Thailand. The frequency is specified. We also explicitly defined the outcome of interest: “The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) occurring within 12 months of the index event.” 3. Refine the Methodology Section Comment: Align the definition of recurrent stroke with established criteria and define all included stroke types. Response: We have revised the Methods section to define recurrent stroke according to the criteria by Coull & Rothwell (2004), and provided definitions for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types as used in the data source. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Comment: Provide a clear rationale for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a sentence to explain that TIA patients were excluded due to the lack of permanent neurological deficits and difficulties in confirming recurrence, which could bias the outcome measurement. 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Comment: Indicate the duration of follow-up. Response: The Methods section now specifies that the follow-up period for identifying recurrent stroke was 12 months post-index stroke event. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Comment: Include number and percentage of cases by group. Indicate adjusted variables in the multivariate analysis. Response: Table 3 has been revised to include both the number and percentage of cases in each category. A footnote has been added to indicate that multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, gender, alcohol consumption, and workplace health support. 7. Improve the Discussion Section Comment: Do not overemphasize age-related risk factors unless central to the aim. Acknowledge possible reasons for non-significant findings. Response: The Discussion section has been updated to focus more on occupational and lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol use, sedentary behavior, workplace support) and their implications. We now also acknowledge that non-significant findings may be due to small subgroup sizes or confounding factors. 8. Revise Repetitive Language Comment: Avoid repetitive use of "Our study" and ensure logical flow between paragraphs. Response: The manuscript has been revised for smoother narrative flow, and redundant phrasing (e.g., “Our study”) has been reduced. Paragraph transitions were edited to enhance clarity and continuity. 9. Simplify the Conclusion Comment: Avoid including odds ratios (ORs) in the conclusion. Instead, summarize key findings. Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to exclude all statistical measures such as ORs. The final paragraph now summarizes the major identified risk factors and highlights their practical relevance for intervention and prevention programs. 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution. Response: Thank you. We have clarified in both the Methods section and Table 1 that the study includes both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The distribution is now stated as follows: “Among the participants, 67.8% had ischemic stroke, while 32.2% had hemorrhagic stroke.” 2. Strengthen the Introduction Comment: Define the most common type of stroke onset and its exact frequency. Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome. Response: The Introduction section has been revised to reflect that ischemic stroke is the most common type among working-age adults in Thailand. The frequency is specified. We also explicitly defined the outcome of interest: “The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) occurring within 12 months of the index event.” 3. Refine the Methodology Section Comment: Align the definition of recurrent stroke with established criteria and define all included stroke types. Response: We have revised the Methods section to define recurrent stroke according to the criteria by Coull & Rothwell (2004), and provided definitions for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types as used in the data source. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Comment: Provide a clear rationale for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a sentence to explain that TIA patients were excluded due to the lack of permanent neurological deficits and difficulties in confirming recurrence, which could bias the outcome measurement. 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Comment: Indicate the duration of follow-up. Response: The Methods section now specifies that the follow-up period for identifying recurrent stroke was 12 months post-index stroke event. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Comment: Include number and percentage of cases by group. Indicate adjusted variables in the multivariate analysis. Response: Table 3 has been revised to include both the number and percentage of cases in each category. A footnote has been added to indicate that multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, gender, alcohol consumption, and workplace health support. 7. Improve the Discussion Section Comment: Do not overemphasize age-related risk factors unless central to the aim. Acknowledge possible reasons for non-significant findings. Response: The Discussion section has been updated to focus more on occupational and lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol use, sedentary behavior, workplace support) and their implications. We now also acknowledge that non-significant findings may be due to small subgroup sizes or confounding factors. 8. Revise Repetitive Language Comment: Avoid repetitive use of "Our study" and ensure logical flow between paragraphs. Response: The manuscript has been revised for smoother narrative flow, and redundant phrasing (e.g., “Our study”) has been reduced. Paragraph transitions were edited to enhance clarity and continuity. 9. Simplify the Conclusion Comment: Avoid including odds ratios (ORs) in the conclusion. Instead, summarize key findings. Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to exclude all statistical measures such as ORs. The final paragraph now summarizes the major identified risk factors and highlights their practical relevance for intervention and prevention programs. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Nov 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sidek NN. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r364042 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-364042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Feb 2025 Norsima Nazifah Sidek , Department of Community Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kelantan, Terengganu, Malaysia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r364042 Some findings in the discussion section could be more critically analysed, linking to existing literature more explicitly. Ensure that references support all claims made in the manuscript. More details on how confounders were controlled ... Continue reading READ ALL Some findings in the discussion section could be more critically analysed, linking to existing literature more explicitly. Ensure that references support all claims made in the manuscript. More details on how confounders were controlled in the logistic regression analysis would strengthen the methodology section. Please explain more detail regarding the sampling method . There are several type of randomization. Please explain more details the validation process for the questionnaire Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Stroke , caregiver I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sidek NN. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r364042 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-364042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 14 Apr 2025 Author Response We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables ... Continue reading We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables were controlled: variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis were included in the adjusted logistic regression model. Clarified that consecutive sampling was used for eligible participants, and random selection was applied only for controls. Clarified that the study did not use randomization in an interventional sense, but used appropriate random selection methods for observational controls. Provided details on the questionnaire validation process: literature-based design, expert review, pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. Discussion Rewrote parts of the discussion to offer more critical reflection and explicitly linked the findings (gender, sedentary behavior, marital status, workplace factors) to existing literature, especially regarding age-specific patterns. Other Sections Confirmed that all claims are now supported by appropriate, current references throughout the manuscript. We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables were controlled: variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis were included in the adjusted logistic regression model. Clarified that consecutive sampling was used for eligible participants, and random selection was applied only for controls. Clarified that the study did not use randomization in an interventional sense, but used appropriate random selection methods for observational controls. Provided details on the questionnaire validation process: literature-based design, expert review, pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. Discussion Rewrote parts of the discussion to offer more critical reflection and explicitly linked the findings (gender, sedentary behavior, marital status, workplace factors) to existing literature, especially regarding age-specific patterns. Other Sections Confirmed that all claims are now supported by appropriate, current references throughout the manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 14 Apr 2025 Author Response We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables ... Continue reading We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables were controlled: variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis were included in the adjusted logistic regression model. Clarified that consecutive sampling was used for eligible participants, and random selection was applied only for controls. Clarified that the study did not use randomization in an interventional sense, but used appropriate random selection methods for observational controls. Provided details on the questionnaire validation process: literature-based design, expert review, pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. Discussion Rewrote parts of the discussion to offer more critical reflection and explicitly linked the findings (gender, sedentary behavior, marital status, workplace factors) to existing literature, especially regarding age-specific patterns. Other Sections Confirmed that all claims are now supported by appropriate, current references throughout the manuscript. We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables were controlled: variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis were included in the adjusted logistic regression model. Clarified that consecutive sampling was used for eligible participants, and random selection was applied only for controls. Clarified that the study did not use randomization in an interventional sense, but used appropriate random selection methods for observational controls. Provided details on the questionnaire validation process: literature-based design, expert review, pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. Discussion Rewrote parts of the discussion to offer more critical reflection and explicitly linked the findings (gender, sedentary behavior, marital status, workplace factors) to existing literature, especially regarding age-specific patterns. Other Sections Confirmed that all claims are now supported by appropriate, current references throughout the manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r358376 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-358376 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Feb 2025 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r358376 The study titled "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand" is a cohort study that includes ischemic stroke patients divided into two groups based on recurrent ischemic stroke. The primary aim is to ... Continue reading READ ALL The study titled "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand" is a cohort study that includes ischemic stroke patients divided into two groups based on recurrent ischemic stroke. The primary aim is to identify significant factors associated with recurrent stroke in working-age adults in urban Thailand. The results indicate that female gender, high fasting blood sugar (FBS), drinking status, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of workplace support for health are significant factors associated with recurrent stroke. Additionally, the study highlights differences in the patterns of significant factors between younger and older workers. Overall, the results of this study are promising, and the discussion is clear. However, there are some comments for improvement to enhance the quality of the paper: Comments to Authors Abstract: Methods: The study is described as a case-control study; however, it includes two groups: patients with recurrent ischemic stroke and those without recurrence. This design aligns more with a cohort study rather than a case-control study. It may be beneficial to remove the control participants and focus the study on two groups based solely on recurrent stroke status. Matched Participants: The authors state that patients are matched by age and gender. However, the distribution of gender is not matched (p < 0.05), as indicated in Table 1. Additionally, it would be helpful to present the age of all participants, regardless of group. The number of patients should be clearly stated in the results section of the abstract. Results: There is missing data regarding the mean age and sex ratio of all participants. Please specify that the odds ratio is adjusted (aOR) and present it in the following format: aOR: ..; 95% CI [..-..]; p: … Conclusion: Please cite the major results obtained from the study clearly. Main text Introduction: Could the authors please clarify what they mean by “uncontrolled factors like alcohol consumption, diabetes, and hypertension”? Since these factors are modifiable, do the authors intend to suggest that there is inadequate control of these factors? The term “working-age adults” should be defined, with references to previous studies in the same area. The phrase “urban work-related stressors” is unclear and would benefit from further explanation. Methods: As previously mentioned in my comments on the abstract, the classification of the study as a case-control study should be reconsidered. The age range referred to in this paragraph does not match Table 1. Are patients aged 20 to 25 missing, or is there a lack of patients in this age group? This needs clarification. In the section on setting and sample, what is meant by "any severe complications"? Please specify that hemorrhagic and other cerebral damages are excluded. The last sentence in this paragraph should be reformulated to emphasize the importance of stroke patients, avoiding the repetition of the phrase "300 patients." In Figure 1, the label "stroke recurrence > 1" needs clarification. Does the study include only one recurrence? Additionally, Figure 1 would be more appropriately placed in the results section. When stratifying participants into age groups, could the authors clarify which references they used for this division? This should be detailed in the Methods section. What is the unit for FBS (Fasting Blood Sugar)? What do “normal,” “medium,” and “high” refer to? These values should be specified in the Methods section. There seems to be a missing section regarding the follow-up of patients. How were patients followed? What was the duration and what kind of examinations were conducted? Could the authors further clarify the Data Collection Procedure section? What is the distinction between this section and the Instruments section? Please ensure that there is no repetition between these two paragraphs. Result: There is missing data regarding the general population, including the mean age for both groups and the sex ratio. This information should be included for clarity. The first paragraph lacks clarity; a further simplification is recommended to enhance understanding. The terms “older workers” and “younger workers” were not defined in the Methods section. All relevant terms should be clearly defined in that section. Regarding the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), the authors need to specify which factors were used for adjustment. This information should be included in the Methods section and referenced under the corresponding table. Conclusion It is essential to summarize the most crucial results of your work. These summaries should be presented concisely. In the conclusion section, ensure that you cite these results, as this will strengthen the credibility of your conclusions and provide a clear link between the findings and the overall message of your paper. Declarations The Declarations section appears to be repetitive. According to the journal's recommendations, please ensure that all relevant information is consolidated into a single section in the paper for clarity and compliance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT M’barek L. Reviewer Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r358376 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-358376 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 May 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 23 May 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 17 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 17 Apr 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Other Sections Consolidated the “Declarations” section for clarity and to meet journal requirements. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Other Sections Consolidated the “Declarations” section for clarity and to meet journal requirements. Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 May 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 23 May 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 17 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong , Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 17 Apr 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Other Sections Consolidated the “Declarations” section for clarity and to meet journal requirements. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Other Sections Consolidated the “Declarations” section for clarity and to meet journal requirements. Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 29 Nov 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 05 Jun 25 read read Version 2 (revision) 23 May 25 read Version 1 29 Nov 24 read read Lamia M’barek , China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Norsima Nazifah Sidek , Universiti Sains Malaysia, Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kelantan, Terengganu, Malaysia Anthony Rudd , King’s College, London, UK Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rudd A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jun 2025 | for Version 3 Anthony Rudd , King’s College, London, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rudd A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Previous reviews have highlighted some of the concerns about the paper and these have already been addressed satisfactorily by the authors. The data presented are of interest, but the limitations of the methodology need to be discussed in more detail. It is acknowledged that the sample is just from one hospital and is not population based and there are limited data on medication compliance, but these are very important issues that do detract from the overall message. The control group are selected from patients attending the hospital for follow-up. By definition therefore they will be people who are complying with at least some aspects of stroke prevention compared to patients who do not attend for follow-up. The lack of data on use of medication (especially anti-platelets, anticoagulants and statins) and the lack of data on whether risk factors (especially hypertension) have actually been controlled are also significant weaknesses that need stronger acknowledgement. These are the factors that previous studies on stroke recurrence have shown to be of particular importance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Stroke management and epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rudd A. Peer Review Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r390104) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-390104 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Jun 2025 | for Version 3 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have reviewed the revisions made to the manuscript and I fully accept the changes. I have no further comments. Thank you for your hard work on this manuscript. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) M’barek L. Peer Review Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183217.r389967) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3#referee-response-389967 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 May 2025 | for Version 2 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Revision 2: We would like to thank the authors for their initial revisions and the improvements made to enhance the manuscript quality. The following suggestions are provided to further strengthen the study: 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Suggestion: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution of stroke types in the study population. 2. Strengthen the Introduction Primary Stroke Type Onset: Define the most common type of stroke onset in the study population and provide its exact frequency (e.g., "Ischemic stroke accounted for 70% of initial strokes in our cohort"). Recurrence Definition: Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome (e.g., "The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke within 12 months of the index event"). 3. Refine the Methodology Section Definition of Recurrent Stroke: If the study includes ischemic stroke, ensure the definition of recurrent stroke aligns with established criteria. If other stroke types are included, add appropriate definitions for each. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Rationale for Exclusion: Provide a clear explanation for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Follow-Up Timeline: Mention the duration of follow-up. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Add Details: Include the number and percentage of cases in each variable according to group subtype. As well, specify which factors were adjusted for in multivariate analyses. Improve the Discussion Section Focus on Main Aim: Avoid limiting the discussion to age-related risk factors unless it is central to the study’s objectives. Instead, focus on factors directly linked to the primary aim. Address Non-Significant Findings: Acknowledge that non-significant results may relate to patient distribution. Revise Repetitive Language Avoid "Our Study" . Ensure paragraphs flow logically by connecting ideas. Simplify the Conclusion Avoid citing odds ratios (OR) in the conclusion. Instead, highlight the major risk factors identified. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Aug 2025 araya chaingkhong, Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand 1. Clarify the Type of Stroke Included in the Study Comment: Explicitly state whether the study focuses on ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or other types of stroke. If multiple types are included, provide a breakdown of the distribution. Response: Thank you. We have clarified in both the Methods section and Table 1 that the study includes both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The distribution is now stated as follows: “Among the participants, 67.8% had ischemic stroke, while 32.2% had hemorrhagic stroke.” 2. Strengthen the Introduction Comment: Define the most common type of stroke onset and its exact frequency. Clearly specify the type(s) of recurrent stroke used as the primary outcome. Response: The Introduction section has been revised to reflect that ischemic stroke is the most common type among working-age adults in Thailand. The frequency is specified. We also explicitly defined the outcome of interest: “The primary outcome was any recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) occurring within 12 months of the index event.” 3. Refine the Methodology Section Comment: Align the definition of recurrent stroke with established criteria and define all included stroke types. Response: We have revised the Methods section to define recurrent stroke according to the criteria by Coull & Rothwell (2004), and provided definitions for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types as used in the data source. 4. Explain the Exclusion of TIA Patients Comment: Provide a clear rationale for excluding patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a sentence to explain that TIA patients were excluded due to the lack of permanent neurological deficits and difficulties in confirming recurrence, which could bias the outcome measurement. 5. Specify Follow-Up Period in Data Collection Comment: Indicate the duration of follow-up. Response: The Methods section now specifies that the follow-up period for identifying recurrent stroke was 12 months post-index stroke event. 6. Enhance Table 3 Presentation Comment: Include number and percentage of cases by group. Indicate adjusted variables in the multivariate analysis. Response: Table 3 has been revised to include both the number and percentage of cases in each category. A footnote has been added to indicate that multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, gender, alcohol consumption, and workplace health support. 7. Improve the Discussion Section Comment: Do not overemphasize age-related risk factors unless central to the aim. Acknowledge possible reasons for non-significant findings. Response: The Discussion section has been updated to focus more on occupational and lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol use, sedentary behavior, workplace support) and their implications. We now also acknowledge that non-significant findings may be due to small subgroup sizes or confounding factors. 8. Revise Repetitive Language Comment: Avoid repetitive use of "Our study" and ensure logical flow between paragraphs. Response: The manuscript has been revised for smoother narrative flow, and redundant phrasing (e.g., “Our study”) has been reduced. Paragraph transitions were edited to enhance clarity and continuity. 9. Simplify the Conclusion Comment: Avoid including odds ratios (ORs) in the conclusion. Instead, summarize key findings. Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to exclude all statistical measures such as ORs. The final paragraph now summarizes the major identified risk factors and highlights their practical relevance for intervention and prevention programs. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern M’barek L. Peer Review Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179234.r386824) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v2#referee-response-386824 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sidek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Norsima Nazifah Sidek , Department of Community Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kelantan, Terengganu, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sidek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Some findings in the discussion section could be more critically analysed, linking to existing literature more explicitly. Ensure that references support all claims made in the manuscript. More details on how confounders were controlled in the logistic regression analysis would strengthen the methodology section. Please explain more detail regarding the sampling method . There are several type of randomization. Please explain more details the validation process for the questionnaire Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Stroke , caregiver I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong, Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand We are grateful to Reviewer 2 for the insightful feedback that helped us clarify key aspects of our methodology and discussion. Methods Added explanation on how confounding variables were controlled: variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis were included in the adjusted logistic regression model. Clarified that consecutive sampling was used for eligible participants, and random selection was applied only for controls. Clarified that the study did not use randomization in an interventional sense, but used appropriate random selection methods for observational controls. Provided details on the questionnaire validation process: literature-based design, expert review, pilot testing, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. Discussion Rewrote parts of the discussion to offer more critical reflection and explicitly linked the findings (gender, sedentary behavior, marital status, workplace factors) to existing literature, especially regarding age-specific patterns. Other Sections Confirmed that all claims are now supported by appropriate, current references throughout the manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Sidek NN. Peer Review Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r364042) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-364042 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Lamia M’barek , Department of Neurology, China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China 0 Views copyright © 2025 M’barek L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study titled "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand" is a cohort study that includes ischemic stroke patients divided into two groups based on recurrent ischemic stroke. The primary aim is to identify significant factors associated with recurrent stroke in working-age adults in urban Thailand. The results indicate that female gender, high fasting blood sugar (FBS), drinking status, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of workplace support for health are significant factors associated with recurrent stroke. Additionally, the study highlights differences in the patterns of significant factors between younger and older workers. Overall, the results of this study are promising, and the discussion is clear. However, there are some comments for improvement to enhance the quality of the paper: Comments to Authors Abstract: Methods: The study is described as a case-control study; however, it includes two groups: patients with recurrent ischemic stroke and those without recurrence. This design aligns more with a cohort study rather than a case-control study. It may be beneficial to remove the control participants and focus the study on two groups based solely on recurrent stroke status. Matched Participants: The authors state that patients are matched by age and gender. However, the distribution of gender is not matched (p < 0.05), as indicated in Table 1. Additionally, it would be helpful to present the age of all participants, regardless of group. The number of patients should be clearly stated in the results section of the abstract. Results: There is missing data regarding the mean age and sex ratio of all participants. Please specify that the odds ratio is adjusted (aOR) and present it in the following format: aOR: ..; 95% CI [..-..]; p: … Conclusion: Please cite the major results obtained from the study clearly. Main text Introduction: Could the authors please clarify what they mean by “uncontrolled factors like alcohol consumption, diabetes, and hypertension”? Since these factors are modifiable, do the authors intend to suggest that there is inadequate control of these factors? The term “working-age adults” should be defined, with references to previous studies in the same area. The phrase “urban work-related stressors” is unclear and would benefit from further explanation. Methods: As previously mentioned in my comments on the abstract, the classification of the study as a case-control study should be reconsidered. The age range referred to in this paragraph does not match Table 1. Are patients aged 20 to 25 missing, or is there a lack of patients in this age group? This needs clarification. In the section on setting and sample, what is meant by "any severe complications"? Please specify that hemorrhagic and other cerebral damages are excluded. The last sentence in this paragraph should be reformulated to emphasize the importance of stroke patients, avoiding the repetition of the phrase "300 patients." In Figure 1, the label "stroke recurrence > 1" needs clarification. Does the study include only one recurrence? Additionally, Figure 1 would be more appropriately placed in the results section. When stratifying participants into age groups, could the authors clarify which references they used for this division? This should be detailed in the Methods section. What is the unit for FBS (Fasting Blood Sugar)? What do “normal,” “medium,” and “high” refer to? These values should be specified in the Methods section. There seems to be a missing section regarding the follow-up of patients. How were patients followed? What was the duration and what kind of examinations were conducted? Could the authors further clarify the Data Collection Procedure section? What is the distinction between this section and the Instruments section? Please ensure that there is no repetition between these two paragraphs. Result: There is missing data regarding the general population, including the mean age for both groups and the sex ratio. This information should be included for clarity. The first paragraph lacks clarity; a further simplification is recommended to enhance understanding. The terms “older workers” and “younger workers” were not defined in the Methods section. All relevant terms should be clearly defined in that section. Regarding the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), the authors need to specify which factors were used for adjustment. This information should be included in the Methods section and referenced under the corresponding table. Conclusion It is essential to summarize the most crucial results of your work. These summaries should be presented concisely. In the conclusion section, ensure that you cite these results, as this will strengthen the credibility of your conclusions and provide a clear link between the findings and the overall message of your paper. Declarations The Declarations section appears to be repetitive. According to the journal's recommendations, please ensure that all relevant information is consolidated into a single section in the paper for clarity and compliance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical Research for Neurological Diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 23 May 2025 araya chaingkhong, Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 17 Apr 2025 araya chaingkhong, Kuakarun Faculty of Nursing, Navamindradhiraj university, Bangkok, Thailand We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses: Abstract We clarified that our study design is a case-control study, based on retrospective outcome status (recurrent vs. non-recurrent stroke), not a cohort design. Removed the incorrect reference to age/gender matching and revised the methodology accordingly. Moved the number of participants (100 cases, 200 controls) to the Results section of the abstract. Added mean age and sex ratio of both groups in the Results. Reworded odds ratios using adjusted format: aOR; 95% CI [lower–upper]. Revised the conclusion in the abstract to directly cite significant findings. Introduction Clarified that “uncontrolled factors” refer to inadequately managed modifiable risk factors . Defined “working-age adults” as aged 20–60 years and provided references. Expanded the explanation of “urban work-related stressors.” Reaffirmed that the case-control approach is appropriate and clearly stated this in the revised manuscript. Methods Clarified that the age range discrepancy (20–24) is due to no eligible participants in that group. Specified “severe complications” as including hemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and other neurological impairments. Revised the final sentence to avoid redundancy in stating "300 patients." Clarified Figure 1 to indicate exclusion of >1 recurrence, and moved it to the Results section. Added references supporting age group classification (early-career: 25–40; mid-to-late-career: 41–60). Specified that FBS was measured in mg/dL using the oxidase enzymatic method and categorized using ADA guidelines. Explained follow-up procedures as retrospective record review, not active follow-up. Differentiated clearly between “Instruments” and “Data Collection” sections. Results Added the mean age and sex ratio to improve demographic clarity. Revised the first paragraph for clarity and readability. Defined “younger” and “older” workers as “early-career” and “mid-to-late-career,” respectively, in alignment with occupational health literature. Specified all variables adjusted in the logistic regression model in both the Methods and Table 2 caption. Discussion and Conclusion Enhanced the discussion with more critical analysis linking findings (e.g., gender, marital status, workplace support) to relevant literature. Rewrote the conclusion to summarize the most important results (with aORs) and directly support the study recommendations. Other Sections Consolidated the “Declarations” section for clarity and to meet journal requirements. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that there are no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern M’barek L. Peer Review Report For: Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent Stroke among Working-Age Adults in Urban Areas of Thailand [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1445 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170076.r358376) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v1#referee-response-358376 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Wongrostrai Y et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445", templates : { twitter : "Lifestyle and Occupational Factors Associated with Recurrent.... Wongrostrai Y et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1445/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/154968/183217") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "183217"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "386823": 0, "364044": 0, "364041": 0, "364040": 0, "386824": 18, "364043": 0, "364042": 16, "362129": 0, "362130": 0, "344893": 0, "344892": 0, "344895": 0, "344894": 0, "344889": 0, "344891": 0, "344890": 0, "344897": 0, "344896": 0, "344898": 0, "348749": 0, "387277": 0, "387276": 0, "354511": 0, "348751": 0, "389967": 8, "387279": 0, "354510": 0, "348750": 0, "387278": 0, "387275": 0, "387274": 0, "354517": 0, "348757": 0, "354516": 0, "348756": 0, "354519": 0, "354518": 0, "348758": 0, "354513": 0, "348753": 0, "387281": 0, "354512": 0, "348752": 0, "389968": 0, "387280": 0, "354515": 0, "348755": 0, "354514": 0, "348754": 0, "390109": 0, "390108": 0, "390111": 0, "390110": 0, "390105": 0, "390104": 29, "390107": 0, "390106": 0, "358373": 0, "358372": 0, "358375": 0, "358374": 0, "390113": 0, "390112": 0, "358371": 0, "358370": 0, "358377": 0, "358376": 26, "358379": 0, "358378": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "dc2cdbe1-3ad4-45e8-ab73-2aff84f11985"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });