{"title":"清洁工在休闲和工作时间的步数与动态血压之间的关系。","authors":"Vivian Rueskov Poulsen, Mathilde Baumann, Mette Korshøj","doi":"10.1007/s00420-023-02015-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The physical activity paradox states occupational physical activity (OPA) to be hazardous and leisure time physical activity (LTPA) to be beneficial for health. Yet, the acute effects of OPA and LTPA on cardiovascular risk factors are sparsely investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) from steps/hour during work and leisure time among cleaners.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from a cluster randomized worksite intervention among 91 cleaners in Denmark and included a questionnaire, objective physical measurements, ABP (measured across 24 h), and steps/hour (measured during work and leisure time). A preliminary linear regression analysis was conducted as a mixed model including random intercept and slope, allowing for both within- and between-participant variability. We adjusted for sex, age, job seniority, medication use, smoking, self-reported fitness and BMI. Changes in ABP (mmHg) were estimated per 100 steps/hour.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of steps taken was not associated with ABP during either work or leisure. Moreover, the ABP did not seem to differ between exposure to steps taken during work (systolic - 0.42 mmHg, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): - 1.10-0.25, diastolic - 0.03 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.45-0.39) and leisure time (systolic -0.47 mmHg, 95% CI, - 1.66-0.72, diastolic 0.25 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.46-0.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings show no significant association between steps/hour and ABP and no contrasting effects between work and leisure time. These mechanisms fostering the divergent results need to be further investigated to improve the understanding of the physical activity paradox.</p>","PeriodicalId":13761,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health","volume":" ","pages":"1373-1381"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635965/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The association between number of steps and the ambulatory blood pressure during leisure vs. work hours among cleaners.\",\"authors\":\"Vivian Rueskov Poulsen, Mathilde Baumann, Mette Korshøj\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00420-023-02015-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The physical activity paradox states occupational physical activity (OPA) to be hazardous and leisure time physical activity (LTPA) to be beneficial for health. Yet, the acute effects of OPA and LTPA on cardiovascular risk factors are sparsely investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) from steps/hour during work and leisure time among cleaners.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from a cluster randomized worksite intervention among 91 cleaners in Denmark and included a questionnaire, objective physical measurements, ABP (measured across 24 h), and steps/hour (measured during work and leisure time). A preliminary linear regression analysis was conducted as a mixed model including random intercept and slope, allowing for both within- and between-participant variability. We adjusted for sex, age, job seniority, medication use, smoking, self-reported fitness and BMI. Changes in ABP (mmHg) were estimated per 100 steps/hour.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of steps taken was not associated with ABP during either work or leisure. Moreover, the ABP did not seem to differ between exposure to steps taken during work (systolic - 0.42 mmHg, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): - 1.10-0.25, diastolic - 0.03 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.45-0.39) and leisure time (systolic -0.47 mmHg, 95% CI, - 1.66-0.72, diastolic 0.25 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.46-0.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings show no significant association between steps/hour and ABP and no contrasting effects between work and leisure time. These mechanisms fostering the divergent results need to be further investigated to improve the understanding of the physical activity paradox.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1373-1381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635965/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-023-02015-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-023-02015-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
The association between number of steps and the ambulatory blood pressure during leisure vs. work hours among cleaners.
Purpose: The physical activity paradox states occupational physical activity (OPA) to be hazardous and leisure time physical activity (LTPA) to be beneficial for health. Yet, the acute effects of OPA and LTPA on cardiovascular risk factors are sparsely investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) from steps/hour during work and leisure time among cleaners.
Methods: Data were obtained from a cluster randomized worksite intervention among 91 cleaners in Denmark and included a questionnaire, objective physical measurements, ABP (measured across 24 h), and steps/hour (measured during work and leisure time). A preliminary linear regression analysis was conducted as a mixed model including random intercept and slope, allowing for both within- and between-participant variability. We adjusted for sex, age, job seniority, medication use, smoking, self-reported fitness and BMI. Changes in ABP (mmHg) were estimated per 100 steps/hour.
Results: The number of steps taken was not associated with ABP during either work or leisure. Moreover, the ABP did not seem to differ between exposure to steps taken during work (systolic - 0.42 mmHg, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): - 1.10-0.25, diastolic - 0.03 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.45-0.39) and leisure time (systolic -0.47 mmHg, 95% CI, - 1.66-0.72, diastolic 0.25 mmHg, 95% CI, - 0.46-0.97).
Conclusion: Our findings show no significant association between steps/hour and ABP and no contrasting effects between work and leisure time. These mechanisms fostering the divergent results need to be further investigated to improve the understanding of the physical activity paradox.
期刊介绍:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health publishes Editorials, Review Articles, Original Articles, and Letters to the Editor. It welcomes any manuscripts dealing with occupational or ambient environmental problems, with a special interest in research at the interface of occupational health and clinical medicine. The scope ranges from Biological Monitoring to Dermatology, from Fibers and Dust to Human Toxicology, from Nanomaterials and Ultra-fine Dust to Night- and Shift Work, from Psycho-mental Distress and Burnout to Vibrations. A complete list of topics can be found on the right-hand side under For authors and editors.
In addition, all papers should be based on present-day standards and relate to:
-Clinical and epidemiological studies on morbidity and mortality
-Clinical epidemiological studies on the parameters relevant to the estimation of health risks
-Human experimental studies on environmental health effects. Animal experiments are only acceptable if relevant to pathogenic aspects.
-Methods for studying the topics mentioned above.