2011
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqr178
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unhealthy and healthy weight control behaviours among bus operators

Abstract: Worksite interventions should emphasize the benefit of healthy eating and physical activity but should also address the use of less healthy methods for weight control for individuals employed in transportation occupations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
35
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
35
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Research staff members distributed questionnaires to participating drivers and measured drivers’ height and weight. We assessed sociodemographic and work factors, body weight and related behaviors, health-related perceptions and attitudes, and support for healthy eating, physical activity, and healthy weight (35,13,14).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Research staff members distributed questionnaires to participating drivers and measured drivers’ height and weight. We assessed sociodemographic and work factors, body weight and related behaviors, health-related perceptions and attitudes, and support for healthy eating, physical activity, and healthy weight (35,13,14).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unhealthy and healthy weight control behaviors were assessed by asking participants whether they had engaged in any of 10 dietary behaviors (eg, increasing fruit and vegetables, taking diet pills) (14). Healthy dieting behavior was defined as participants’ engaging in at least 1 healthy weight control behavior and no unhealthy weight control behaviors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e Downgraded for indirectness. f Van de Gaar 2014 and French 2010 were cluster‐RCTs with four units, of which two were allocated by the flip of a coin to the intervention group. Given the small number of randomised units, randomisation may not have been sufficient to attain baseline comparability of the intervention and control groups.…”
Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…of clusters or participants No. of studies Certainty of Evidence Impact F.1 Healthier default beverages in children's menus in restaurants SSB sales (6 years) 145 restaurants in 1 theme park 1 ITS study ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW a,b Peters 2016a (share of children's menus served with SSB): − 68 percentage points F.2 In‐store promotion of low‐calorie beverages in supermarkets SSB sales (6 months) 8 supermarkets from 2 chains 1 cluster‐RCT ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE c Foster 2014 (in‐aisle SSB sales per supermarket): − 11 l/day (95% CI − 63 to 40) Foster 2014 (check‐out cooler SSB sales per supermarket): − 2 units/day (95% CI − 5 to 1) F.3 Healthier vending machines in workplaces and schools SSB sales (18 to 24 months) 6 schools and 4 worksites 2 NRCTs d ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW d,e,f Ermetici 2016 (SSB intake, normal weight participants): − 1.1 times/week (95% CI − 1.5 to − 0.7) Ermetici 2016 (SSB intake, participants with overweight and obesity): − 0.8 times/week (95% CI − 1.5 to − 0.1) French 2010 (SSB intake): +14 ml/day (P > 0.05) Total revenue g (5 months) 1 worksite 1 cluster‐RCT ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW h Hua 2017 reports that "the control machines and machines that had product guidelines and price changes both had small but significant decreases in revenue (‐$156.10 and ‐$593.55, respectively; P < 0.05). " F.4 Urban planning restrictions on new fast‐food outlets SSB intake (3 to 4 years) 11,821 inhabitants of 1 city and 1 county 1 CBA study ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW i,j Sturm 2015 (SSB intake frequency, measure or scale not reported): − 0.9 (P > 0.05) F.5 Restrictions on the number of stores selling SSB in remote communities SSB sales (8 months) 3 stores in 1 remote community 1 ITS study ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW k,l Minaker 2016 (community‐wide SSB sales, model controlling for the summer peak): CAD −51 /day (95% CI − 166 to 65) CBA: Controlled‐before‐after study; CI: Confidence interval; ITS : interrupted‐time‐series study; NRCT : non‐randomised controlled trial; RCT : randomised controlled trial; SSB: sugar‐sweetened beverages a Downgraded for risk of bias: In Peters 2016a, data for the first three years post‐intervention are missing, and the point of analysis is therefore not the point of intervention.…”
Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relação dos estudos incluídos na revisão segundo autores, ano, local, tipo do estudo, prevalência da obesidade ou estimativa do estado nutricional e associações com a obesidade. FRENCH, 2012). É um resultado alarmante, destacando a importância de intervenções nesta população, já que a obesidade é um dos principais fatores de risco para doenças crônicas não transmissíveis, como a hipercolesterolemia, diabetes, doenças cardiovasculares, algumas formas de câncer; representando, atualmente, um desafio à Saúde Pública (COSTA et al, 2011).…”
Section: Prevalências Da Obesidade Caracterização Da População E Dosunclassified