4.0 Article

The effects of rotating and extended night shift work on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its components

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2019.11.006

关键词

Shift workers; Rotating shift work; Night shift work; Metabolic syndrome; Cardiovascular risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some studies indicated night shift work can be associated with the higher risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS). However, the effect of both rotating and extended night shift work (12-hr rotating night) on MetS has not well-known. We aimed to examine and clarify the association among petrochemical workers. Methods: We recruited 1575 eligible workers in this study. According to shift work schedules the participants were divided into following groups: 12-hr fixed day and 12-hr rotating night. Biochemical data, including fasting blood sugar and lipid panel (TC, TG, LDL, and HDL) were determined by blood tests. Demographic data was obtained by interview at the time of blood pressure and anthropometric indices measurements. The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) was applied to identify subjects with MetS. The Logistic regression models were used to predict risk of MetS and its components between study groups. Results: The prevalence of MetS was showed 18.4% (290/1575). We found a significant difference between study groups in the prevalence of MetS (p <0.05). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the 12-hr rotating night group in comparison to the 12-hr fixed day shift group according to unadjusted and full adjusted logistic regression models were estimated 1.26 (0.96, 1.65) and 1.34 (1.01, 1.76), respectively. Among MetS components, we observed the significant higher risk in TG and HDL (P <0.05). Conclusion: This study suggests 12-hr rotating night shift as the high-risk group for MetS. More studies needed to confirm our findings. (C) 2019 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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