Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 28;8(10):e023379. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023379.
Socioeconomic health differences have often been described, but remain insufficiently understood. Recent evidence suggests that workers who are high (compared with low) physically active at work are less healthy. Moreover, workers who are highly physically active at work are predominantly physically inactive during leisure time. These observations suggest that workers with a lower socioeconomic status may be exposed to negative health consequences of occupational physical activity and may only benefit to a limited extent from health benefits of leisure-time physical activity. Physical activity may therefore be an important driver of socioeconomic health differences. We describe the rationale and protocol of the active worker study, an individual participant data meta-analysis aimed at exploring socioeconomic health differences by differential doses of physical activity at work and leisure time.
Using database and scoping searches (we searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from database inception to 14 September 2017), we have identified 49 published and unpublished prospective studies in which the association of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with cardiovascular or all-cause mortality was assessed. Principal investigators of these studies will be invited to participate in the active worker consortium, after which data will be retrieved. After data merging and harmonising, we will perform multilevel survival analysis assessing the combined association of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with mortality. We will also test the mediating effect of physical activity on the association of socioeconomic status and mortality (ie, socioeconomic health differences).
The Medical Ethical Committee of the VU University Medical Center has declared, according to Dutch legislation, that the 'Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act' does not apply to the current study. As such, no ethics approval is required. We intent to publish outcomes of the active worker Study in scientific peer-reviewed journals.
CRD42018085228.
社会经济健康差异经常被描述,但仍未得到充分理解。最近的证据表明,工作中体力活动较高(相对于较低)的工人健康状况较差。此外,工作中体力活动较高的工人在闲暇时间主要是不活跃的。这些观察结果表明,社会经济地位较低的工人可能会受到职业体力活动对健康的负面影响,并且可能只能在有限程度上从闲暇时间体力活动的健康益处中受益。因此,体力活动可能是社会经济健康差异的一个重要驱动因素。我们描述了积极工作者研究的基本原理和方案,这是一项个体参与者数据荟萃分析,旨在通过工作和闲暇时间体力活动的不同剂量来探索社会经济健康差异。
使用数据库和范围搜索(我们在 PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews 中进行了搜索,从数据库建立到 2017 年 9 月 14 日),我们已经确定了 49 项已发表和未发表的前瞻性研究,这些研究评估了职业和闲暇时间体力活动与心血管或全因死亡率的关系。这些研究的主要研究者将被邀请参加积极工作者联盟,之后将检索数据。在数据合并和协调后,我们将进行多层次生存分析,评估职业和闲暇时间体力活动与死亡率的综合关联。我们还将测试体力活动对社会经济地位和死亡率之间关联的中介作用(即社会经济健康差异)。
VU 大学医学中心的医学伦理委员会根据荷兰法律宣布,现行研究不适用“荷兰涉及人体的医学研究法”。因此,不需要伦理批准。我们打算在科学同行评议期刊上发表积极工作者研究的结果。
CRD42018085228。