4.3 Article

Physical activity of subjects aged 50-64 years involved in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 5, 期 6B, 页码 1163-1177

出版社

C A B I PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1079/PHN2002397

关键词

EPIC study; physical activity; activity patterns; recreational activity; home activity Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe physical activity of participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Design: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data of a European prospective cohort study. Subjects: This analysis was restricted to participants in the age group 50-64 years, which was represented in all EPIC centres. It involved 236 386 participants from 25 centres in nine countries. In each EPIC centre, physical activity was assessed by standardised and validated questions. Frequency distribution of type of professional activity and participation in non-professional activities, and age-adjusted means, medians and percentiles of time dedicated to non-professional activities are presented for men and women from each centre. Results: Professional activity was most frequently classified as sedentary or standing in all centres. There was a wide variation regarding participation in different types of non-professional activities and time dedicated to these activities across EPIC centres. Over 80% of all EPIC participants engaged in walking, while less than 50% of the subjects participated in sport. Total time dedicated to recreational activities was highest among the Dutch participants and lowest among men from Malmo (Sweden) and women from Naples (Italy). In all centres, total time dedicated to recreational activity in the summer was higher than in the winter. Women from southern Europe spent the most time on housekeeping. Conclusions: There is a considerable variation of physical activity across EPIC centres. This variation was especially evident for recreational activities in both men and women.

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