4.3 Article

Obesity among Health-Care Workers: Which Occupations Are at Higher Risk of Being Obese?

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084381

关键词

obesity; health-care workers; occupational type; obese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a high prevalence of obesity among Malaysian healthcare workers, with nurses being more prone to obesity among different job categories. The results emphasize the impact of obesity on healthcare workers' health and professional capabilities, calling for further exploration of working condition factors and public health intervention programs.
Obesity among health-care workers (HCWs) is an important issue as it can affect both their health condition and their professional capability. Although adult obesity is attributable to occupational factors, few reports are available on Malaysian health-care workers' obesity and whether different health-care job categories are related to workers' obesity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of obesity among HCWs and the association between various HCW job categories and obesity. A cross-sectional study was conducted by analyzing secondary data from the 2019 annual cardiovascular health screening program, which included information regarding all government health-care workers in the east coast region of Peninsular Malaysia. The subject's body mass index (BMI) was categorized according to WHO criteria. Only 43% of the subjects had a normal BMI, while 33.1% were categorized as overweight, and 21.1% were obese. Different HCWs' job categories were shown to be significantly associated with their obesity status, with nurses apparently having a higher risk of being obese (Adj OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.45, 2.53, p-value < 0.001). This study's results require further exploration of HCWs' working condition factors and for different job categories that contribute to obesity. Public health intervention programs to combat obesity should be implemented that primarily target HCW groups at the highest risk of obesity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据