4.6 Article

The Relation between Occupational Sitting and Mental, Cardiometabolic, and Musculoskeletal Health over a Period of 15 Years - The Doetinchem Cohort Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146639

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Sedentary behaviors are reported to impose health risks. Since occupational exposure is a major proportion of total sedentary time, we studied the association between occupational sitting and a number of health problems. Methods From the longitudinal Doetinchem Cohort Study, we selected those working at baseline with complete data (n = 1,509). Participants were examined four times at 5 year-intervals between 1993 and 2012. We characterized occupational sitting as follows: 1) stable sitters and stable non sitters over a 15-year period, based on job characteristics and (2) having a job with a low, moderate or high amount of sitting, based on tertiles of self-reported number of hours per week of occupational sitting, measured at wave 5. Linear and logistic regression models were used. Outcomes were self-reported mental health, low-back or upper extremity pain, and objectively measured cardiometabolic health (overweight, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia). Results Compared to stable non sitters, a lower risk of chronic upper extremity pain was observed for stable sitters (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57; 1.00) as well as for those in the two upper tertiles for hours of occupational sitting (>4 hr/wk) (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50-0.86). For the other health outcomes studied, no significant associations were found with occupational sitting. Conclusion Our findings do not support the hypothesis that occupational sitting is associated with health problems. The finding that occupational sitting is associated with less upper extremity pain might be due to the association of occupational sitting with less physical load.

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

4.6
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