2019
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lifestyle and work ability in a general working population in Norway: a cross-sectional study

Abstract: ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the association between multiple lifestyle-related risk factors (unhealthy diet, low leisure-time physical activity, overweight/obesity and smoking) and self-rated work ability in a general working population.SettingPopulation-based cross-sectional study, in Telemark County, Norway, 2013.ParticipantsA random sample of 50 000 subjects was invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire and 16 099 responded. Complete data on lifestyle and work ability were o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
29
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
(68 reference statements)
4
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, we controlled for multiple potential confounders. The control variables were selected since they have previously been associated with pain, work limitations, and/or physical activity at work [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. The analyses were controlled for age (continuous scale, years), sex (categorical; 'male' or 'female'), smoking status (categorical; 'No, never', 'Ex-smoker', 'Yes, but not every day' and 'Yes, every day'), body mass index (BMI) (continuous scale; kg/m 2 ), musculoskeletal pain in the neck/shoulder, arms and legs (continuous scale 0-10), psychosocial work environment (described below), educational level (described below), and physical activity during leisure (described below).…”
Section: Control Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the present study, we controlled for multiple potential confounders. The control variables were selected since they have previously been associated with pain, work limitations, and/or physical activity at work [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. The analyses were controlled for age (continuous scale, years), sex (categorical; 'male' or 'female'), smoking status (categorical; 'No, never', 'Ex-smoker', 'Yes, but not every day' and 'Yes, every day'), body mass index (BMI) (continuous scale; kg/m 2 ), musculoskeletal pain in the neck/shoulder, arms and legs (continuous scale 0-10), psychosocial work environment (described below), educational level (described below), and physical activity during leisure (described below).…”
Section: Control Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diet was defined using food frequency questions previously validated and used in the Norwegian population-based Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT3) (2006)(2007)(2008) [26,27]. To reflect general dietary advice for improved health [28], a dietary sum score was constructed based on intake of fruits/berries and vegetables, fatty fish, sausages/hamburgers and chocolate/candies [21]. The sum score for each participant (scale 0-4) was calculated by summing their scores for the four indicators, reflecting the number of recommendations met [29].…”
Section: Lifestyle Risk Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lifestyle risk index. An overall lifestyle risk index was calculated to investigate the possible additive effect of lifestyle risk factors on work ability [21]. To estimate relative health risk, the individual lifestyle factors were given weighted risk scores: 0 (low health risk), 0.5 (intermediate health risk) and 1 (high health risk), and then summed into an overall index ranging from 0 to 4 (Table 1).…”
Section: Lifestyle Risk Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Besides, lifestyle factors linked to risky health behaviors might decrease the levels of work ability. The lack of leisure-time physical activity, unhealthy eating habits, low sleep quality, and smoking may negatively affect work ability [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. The findings on alcohol drinking habits are ambiguous.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%