Different associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with the prevalence of hypertension among middle-aged community dwellers in rural Khánh Hòa, Vietnam

Abstract

Background In contrast to high-income countries where physical activity (PA), particularly leisure-time PA, has been shown to be protective against hypertension, few studies have been conducted in low- and middle-income countries. We examined the cross-sectional association between PA and hypertension prevalence among rural residents in Vietnam. Methods We used data collected in the baseline survey of a prospective cohort study, among 3000 people aged 40–60 years old residing in rural Khánh Hòa, Vietnam. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or the use of antihypertensive medication. We assessed occupational PA and leisure-time PA using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. A robust Poisson regression model was used to investigate the associations, with adjustment for covariates. Results The prevalence of hypertension was 39.6%. After adjusting for socio-demographic and lifestyle-related variables, leisure-time PA was positively associated with hypertension prevalence (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.03 per 10 MET-hour/week, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.06). Occupational PA was inversely associated with hypertension prevalence (PR: 0.98 per 50 MET-hour/week, 95% CI = 0.96–0.996). After adjusting for BMI and other health-related variables, the association related to occupational PA became statistically non-significant, while the association related to leisure-time PA remained statistically significant. Conclusion In contrast to previous studies in high-income countries, we found that leisure-time PA was positively associated with hypertension prevalence and occupational PA was associated with a lower hypertension prevalence. This suggests that the association between PA and hypertension might differ depending on the context.

Sex disparities in physical activity domains and hypertension prevalence

“…Some studies have shown an association between higher OPA and increased hypertension risk [ 14 , 15 ], including a tendency for heavy occupational lifting to increase the incidence of hypertension [ 23 ]. However, these results are not universally observed [ 12 , 16 , 17 ]. A meta-analysis has indicated no significant association between OPA and hypertension [ 12 ].…”

“…A meta-analysis has indicated no significant association between OPA and hypertension [ 12 ]. Additionally, lower levels of OPA have been associated with a higher risk of hypertension [ 18 , 19 ], while higher levels of OPA have been associated with a lower risk of hypertension [ 15 , 17 ]. These discrepancies may be influenced by factors such as study populations, definitions of OPA, outcome variables, and potential confounding factors.…”

“…Certain studies have shown that higher OPA is associated with an increased risk of hypertension [ 14 , 15 ], but these findings are not consistent across all studies [ 12 , 16 ]. Alternatively, some studies have reported an inverse association between OPA and hypertension [ 17 – 19 ], while others have observed a U-shaped relationship [ 20 ]. As a result, the association between OPA and hypertension remains conflicting, necessitating further studies to evaluate the relationship between OPA, including intensity and volume variables, and the risk of hypertension.…”

Lifestyle factors modified the mediation role of liver fibrosis in the association between occupational physical activity and blood pressure

“…In recent times, more and more studies have started to explore the association between occupational physical activity (OPA) and blood pressure (BP) in workers, but the results are controversial. Some studies have demonstrated that higher physical activity was associated with a lower risk of hypertension compared to low physical activity ( 4 , 5 ). However, a Chinese cohort study ( n = 9,350) found that high OPA workers had a 1.46 times higher risk of new-onset hypertension compared with low OPA workers ( P < 0.05) ( 6 ).…”