4.3 Article

Sociodemographic risk factors of metabolic syndrome in middle-aged women: results from a population-based study of Swedish women, The Women's Health in the Lund Area (WHILA) Study

期刊

CLIMACTERIC
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 475-482

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13697130802451787

关键词

Metabolic Syndrome; Menopause; Middle-Aged Women; Life Style; Obesity; Insulin Resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a common health problem in menopausal women. According to The Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III, MS includes the combination of three or more of the following risk factors: abdominal obesity, glucose intolerance, high blood pressure, high serum triglycerides and low levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol. Objectives To assess the prevalence of the MS in middle-aged women, and the relationships of sociodemographic factors to the MS. Methods This analysis covers 10 766 women born between December 2, 1935 and December 1, 1945, living in the Lund area of Sweden by December 1, 1995. Results We found that 11.6% of women with a mean (standard deviation) age of 56.93.06 years had MS. Women with MS were older and had higher scores for body weight, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, pulse rate, pulse pressure, serum triglycerides and total serum cholesterol (p0.001 for all) compared to the control group. More MS women were smokers, less often consumers of alcohol, and less qualified. In addition, they had low-intensity physical activity at leisure time (p0.001) and high-intensity physical activity at work (p=0.009). Premenopausal women and those treated with hormones had less MS (p0.001). Education, physical activity at leisure time, moderate intensity of physical activity at work, alcohol intake and smoking had strong association with MS but work status, household status and dietary habits had no significant association with MS. Conclusions Sociodemographic features may contribute to MS. Hence, prevention of MS should encompass sociodemographic features.

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

4.3
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