OBJECTIVES: This study attempted to identify work and leisure-time conditions and life-style factors associated with excess metabolic levels (metabolic demands exceeding one-third of a person's aerobic capacity) at work among men and women. METHODS: The study focused upon psychological, ergonomic, and physically loading factors and chemical and physical environmental conditions. Data were obtained through self-reports, interviews, workplace analyses, technical measurements, and observations. Gender-specific calculations were used in univariate analyses and in stepwise logistic regression models for excess metabolic level. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the men and twenty-two percent of the women worked at an excess metabolic level during their workday. Awkward work postures, heavy manual materials handling, high circulatory strain, chemical exposures, noise levels, much routine work, and many obstacles to job performance characterized their work conditions. The women had low skill discretion and more often atypical workhours, while the men showed high circulatory strain during leisure-time activities. Important negative life-style factors were a high consumption of alcohol for the men and a high body mass index and no or little regular physical exercise for the women. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic demands in worklife today remain high. The women who exceeded the recommended metabolic level at work in this study were characterized by low pay, poor health, and children at home, in addition to high physical load and psychosocial strain at work. These characteristics indicate a group with few possibilities to leave a hazardous job for a less physically demanding one. The men who worked at an excess metabolic level seemed to be characterized more by a life-style common in some male-dominated work cultures with monotonous work.
OBJECTIVES: This study attempted to identify work and leisure-time conditions and life-style factors associated with excess metabolic levels (metabolic demands exceeding one-third of a person's aerobic capacity) at work among men and women. METHODS: The study focused upon psychological, ergonomic, and physically loading factors and chemical and physical environmental conditions. Data were obtained through self-reports, interviews, workplace analyses, technical measurements, and observations. Gender-specific calculations were used in univariate analyses and in stepwise logistic regression models for excess metabolic level. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the men and twenty-two percent of the women worked at an excess metabolic level during their workday. Awkward work postures, heavy manual materials handling, high circulatory strain, chemical exposures, noise levels, much routine work, and many obstacles to job performance characterized their work conditions. The women had low skill discretion and more often atypical workhours, while the men showed high circulatory strain during leisure-time activities. Important negative life-style factors were a high consumption of alcohol for the men and a high body mass index and no or little regular physical exercise for the women. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic demands in worklife today remain high. The women who exceeded the recommended metabolic level at work in this study were characterized by low pay, poor health, and children at home, in addition to high physical load and psychosocial strain at work. These characteristics indicate a group with few possibilities to leave a hazardous job for a less physically demanding one. The men who worked at an excess metabolic level seemed to be characterized more by a life-style common in some male-dominated work cultures with monotonous work.
Authors: Els Clays; Dirk De Bacquer; Heidi Janssens; Bart De Clercq; Annalisa Casini; Lutgart Braeckman; France Kittel; Guy De Backer; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Els Clays; Annalisa Casini; Koen Van Herck; Dirk De Bacquer; France Kittel; Guy De Backer; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Margo Ketels; Dirk De Bacquer; Tom Geens; Heidi Janssens; Mette Korshøj; Andreas Holtermann; Els Clays Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-06-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Andreas Holtermann; Jacob Louis Marott; Finn Gyntelberg; Karen Søgaard; Poul Suadicani; Ole Steen Mortensen; Eva Prescott; Peter Schnohr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240