Latent profile analysis patterns of exercise, sitting and fitness in adults - Associations with metabolic risk factors, perceived health, and perceived symptoms
Latent profile analysis patterns of exercise, sitting and fitness in adults - Associations with metabolic risk factors, perceived health, and perceived symptoms
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0232210
复制
发表时间：
2020-04-24
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Lindwall, Magnus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ekblom-Bak, Elin;Stenling, Andreas;Lindwall, Magnus
目的识别和描述自然发生的运动模式的特征，在闲暇时间和工作中坐着和心肺健康，以及这些特征与代谢危险因素、感知健康和感知症状的关联。方法纳入2014-2018年参加职业健康服务筛查的64,970名参与者（女性42%，18-75岁）。锻炼和久坐都是自我报告的。采用次最大循环试验估计心肺适能。潜在剖面分析用于识别剖面。通过体格检查评估BMI和血压。感觉背部/颈部疼痛、整体压力、整体健康和睡眠问题都是自我报告的。结果识别并标记了基于运动、休闲时间、工作时间和心肺健康的6个特征；资料1“不爱运动，健康程度低，休闲时平均久坐，工作时少坐”；概况2“不活跃，低健康和久坐”；外形3“活跃，身体健康，工作时少坐”；概况4“活跃，平均健康，休闲时久坐，工作时久坐”（最常见的概况，占人口的35%）；外形5“活跃健康，久坐不动”；外形6“活跃健康，少坐着工作”。在各概况（1和2、3和4、5和6）之间发现了一些两两相似性，主要基于相似的运动水平、休闲时间坐着和健身，这转化为与结果相似的剂量反应关联。总的来说，情况1和2表现出最不利的代谢和感知健康，情况4比情况3更有益健康，情况6比情况5更有益健康。结论目前的研究结果表明，在研究自然发生的模式时，运动、坐姿和健康存在很大的差异，并强调了在促进健康的干预和策略中以运动、坐姿和/或健身为目标的可能性。
AimTo identify and describe the characteristics of naturally occurring patterns of exercise, sitting in leisure time and at work and cardiorespiratory fitness, and the association of such profiles with metabolic risk factors, perceived health, and perceived symptoms.Methods64,970 participants (42% women, 18-75 years) participating in an occupational health service screening in 2014-2018 were included. Exercise and sitting were self-reported. Cardiorespiratory fitness was estimated using a submaximal cycle test. Latent profile analysis was used to identify profiles. BMI and blood pressure were assessed through physical examination. Perceived back/neck pain, overall stress, global health, and sleeping problems were self-reported.ResultsSix profiles based on exercise, sitting in leisure time and at work and cardiorespiratory fitness were identified and labelled; Profile 1 "Inactive, low fit and average sitting in leisure, with less sitting at work"; Profile 2 "Inactive, low fit and sedentary"; Profile 3 "Active and average fit, with less sitting at work"; Profile 4 "Active, average fit and sedentary in leisure, with a sedentary work" (the most common profile, 35% of the population); Profile 5 "Active and fit, with a sedentary work"; Profile 6 "Active and fit, with less sitting at work". Some pairwise similarities were found between profiles (1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6), mainly based on similar levels of exercise, leisure time sitting and fitness, which translated into similar dose-response associations with the outcomes. In general, profile 1 and 2 demonstrated most adverse metabolic and perceived health, profile 4 had a more beneficial health than profile 3, as did profile 6 compared to profile 5.ConclusionsThe present results implies a large variation in exercise, sitting, and fitness when studying naturally occurring patterns, and emphasize the possibility to target exercise, sitting time, and/or fitness in health enhancing promotion intervention and strategies.