4.6 Article

Objectively-assessed and self-reported sedentary time in relation to multiple socioeconomic status indicators among adults in England: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 4, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006034

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [CDF-2010-03-30]
  2. National Institute for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To examine the associations between socioeconomic position (SEP) and multidomain self-reported and objectively-assessed sedentary time (ST). Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: General population households in England. Participants: 2289 adults aged 16-96 years who participated in the 2008 Health Survey for England. Outcomes: Accelerometer-measured ST, and self-reported television time, non-television leisure-time sitting and occupational sitting/standing. We examined multivariable associations between household income, social class, education, area deprivation for each SEP indicator (including a 5-point composite SEP score computed by aggregating individual SEP indicators) and each ST indicator using generalised linear models. Results: Accelerometry-measured total ST and occupational sitting/standing were positively associated with SEP score and most of its constituent SEP indicators, while television time was negatively associated with SEP score and education level. Area-level deprivation was largely unrelated to ST. Those in the lowest composite SEP group spent 64 (95% CIs 52 to 76) and 72 (48 to 98), fewer minutes/day in total ST and occupational sitting/standing compared to those in the top SEP group, and an additional 48 (35-60) min/day watching television (p<0.001 for linear trend). Stratified analyses showed that these associations between composite SEP score and total ST were evident only among participants who were in employment. Conclusions: Occupational sitting seems to drive the positive association between SEP and total ST. Lower SEP is linked to higher TV viewing times.

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