4.6 Article

Sitting-time and 9-year all-cause mortality in older women

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 95-99

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091676

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHMRC at the University of Queensland, School of Human Movement Studies [301200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Studies of mid-aged adults provide evidence of a relationship between sitting-time and all-cause mortality, but evidence in older adults is limited. The aim is to examine the relationship between total sitting-time and all-cause mortality in older women. Methods The prospective cohort design involved 6656 participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health who were followed for up to 9 years (2002, age 76-81, to 2011, age 85-90). Self-reported total sitting-time was linked to all-cause mortality data from the National Death Index from 2002 to 2011. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the relationship between sitting-time and all-cause mortality, with adjustment for potential sociodemographic, behavioural and health confounders. Results There were 2003 (30.1%) deaths during a median follow-up of 6 years. Compared with participants who sat <4 h/day, those who sat 8-11 h/day had a 1.45 times higher risk of death and those who sat >= 11 h/day had a 1.65 times higher risk of death. These risks remained after adding sociodemographic and behavioural covariates, but were attenuated after adjustment for health covariates. A significant interaction (p=0.02) was found between sitting-time and physical activity (PA), with increased mortality risk for prolonged sitting only among participants not meeting PA guidelines (HR for sitting >= 8 h/day: 1.31, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.61); HR for sitting >= 11 h/day: 1.47, CI 1.15 to 1.93). Conclusions Prolonged sitting-time was positively associated with all-cause mortality. Women who reported sitting for more than 8 h/day and did not meet PA guidelines had an increased risk of dying within the next 9 years.

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