4.5 Article

Sitting time and socio-economic differences in overweight and obesity

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 169-176

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803357

关键词

sitting time; body mass index; mediation effects; neighbourhood; education; income

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To examine (1) the inter-relationships between socio-economic status (SES), physical activity, three different domains of sitting time (weekday, weekend day and leisure-time sitting), and being overweight or obese (body mass index >= 25 kg/m(2)); and (2) the potential mediation effects of sitting time in the relationship between socio-economic factors and being overweight or obese in working Australian adults. Design: Observational epidemiological study. Subjects: One thousand forty eight working adults. Using a multistage sampling design on neighbourhood SES, participants were from high and low SES neighbourhoods of an Australian capital city. Measurements: Neighbourhood SES was assessed using census data; individual SES was based on self-reported educational attainment and household income. There were three sitting time variables: sitting time on weekdays, weekend days and in leisure time. Overweight and obesity were determined using self-reported body weight and height. Results: Gender, age, neighbourhood SES, education, working hours and physical activity were independently associated with weekday, weekend day and leisure-related sitting time. With the exception of education and working hours, these variables were also independently associated with being overweight or obese. Leisure-time sitting was found to be a mediator in the relationships between gender, education and being overweight or obese. Conclusion: Strategies to promote less sitting in leisure time are required to combat overweight and obesity in Australian adults, especially among those from low SES neighbourhoods, and among those with high levels of education and income who work long hours.

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

4.5
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