Contributors: Institute of Environmental Medicine; Karolinska Institutet Stockholm; Health Sciences School; Jönköping University Sweden; Stress Research Institute; Stockholm University; Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; Centre de recherche en épidémiologie et santé des populations (CESP); Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM); Department of Epidemiology and Public Health; University College of London London (UCL); Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Uppsala University; Department of Public Health; University of Turku; Folkhälsan Research Center; Department of Medical Sociology; Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf = Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf; Department of Public Health Copenhagen; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences; University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (UCPH)-University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (UCPH); National Research Centre for the Working Environment; National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE); Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Umeå University, Sweden; Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Bispebjerg University Hospital (BUH); Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology; Universität Duisburg-Essen = University of Duisburg-Essen Essen; School of Sociology, Social Policy, & Social Work; Queen's University Belfast (QUB); Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities; Department of Health Sciences; Mid Sweden University; School of Public Health; Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB); The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO); Social and Community Medicine School; University of Bristol Bristol; Department of cardiology; State University of Ghent; Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Karolinska Institutet Stockholm -Sachs' Children's Hospital; Imperial College London; The IPD-Work Consortium is supported by the European Union-based New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health, anticipating and dealing with change in the workplace through coordination of the occupational safety and health risk research (NEW OSH ERA) research program (funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund, the Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, the German Social Accident Insurance, the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment); the Academy of Finland (grant 132944); the BUPA Foundation (grant 22094477); and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Netherlands. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study is funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation, Germany, the German Ministry of Education and Science (BMBF), and the German Research Foundation (DFG). German National Accident Insurance (DGUV) supports analyses in the frame of the NEW OSH ERA project. The Dutch contribution (Permanent Onderzoek LeefSituatie) was funded by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Netherlands. Eleonor I. Fransson was supported by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (grants 2009-2126, 2010-1823). David G. Batty is a Wellcome Trust Fellow.
نبذة مختصرة : International audience ; Unfavorable work characteristics, such as low job control and too high or too low job demands, have been suggested to increase the likelihood of physical inactivity during leisure time, but this has not been verified in large-scale studies. The authors combined individual-level data from 14 European cohort studies (baseline years from 1985-1988 to 2006-2008) to examine the association between unfavorable work characteristics and leisure-time physical inactivity in a total of 170,162 employees (50% women; mean age, 43.5 years). Of these employees, 56,735 were reexamined after 2-9 years. In cross-sectional analyses, the odds for physical inactivity were 26% higher (odds ratio = 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.15, 1.38) for employees with high-strain jobs (low control/high demands) and 21% higher (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.11, 1.31) for those with passive jobs (low control/low demands) compared with employees in low-strain jobs (high control/low demands). In prospective analyses restricted to physically active participants, the odds of becoming physically inactive during follow-up were 21% and 20% higher for those with high-strain (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.11, 1.32) and passive (odds ratio = 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.11, 1.30) jobs at baseline. These data suggest that unfavorable work characteristics may have a spillover effect on leisure-time physical activity.
Processing Request
No Comments.