4.6 Article

Work, leisure-time physical activity, and risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 160, Issue 8, Pages 758-765

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh277

Keywords

employment; exercise; hypertension; motor activity; pre-eclampsia; pregnancy

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI41040] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD32579] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA05484] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies of preeclampsia have assessed physical activity level, yet recent evidence suggests that the pathologic mechanisms in preeclampsia are similar to those in cardiovascular disease, for which physical activity is shown to be protective. The authors assessed the independent and combined effects of work and regular leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) during early pregnancy on risk of de novo preeclampsia (n = 44) and gestational hypertension (n = 172) among women recruited from 13 obstetric practices in the New Haven, Connecticut, area between 1988 and 1991. Control subjects were normotensive throughout pregnancy (n = 2,422). Information on time at work spent sitting, standing, and walking and on LTPA before and during pregnancy was collected via face-to-face interviews. Logistic regression analyses suggested that women who engaged in any regular LTPA regardless of caloric expenditure (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35, 1.22), were unemployed (aOR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.21, 2.00), or had nonsedentary jobs (aOR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.37, 1.36) were at decreased risk of preeclampsia. Analyses of gestational hypertension showed no indication of a protective effect of workplace activity, LTPA, or unemployment. Consistent with other studies, these data suggest that regular physical activity during pregnancy may reduce preeclampsia risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available