Audrey J Gaskins1, Janet W Rich-Edwards2, Christina C Lawson3, Eva S Schernhammer4, Stacey A Missmer5, Jorge E Chavarro6. 1. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Medicine, Connors Center for Women's Health and Gender Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of work schedule and physical factors with fecundity. METHODS: Women currently employed outside the home and trying to get pregnant (n=1739) in the Nurses' Health Study 3 cohort (2010-2014) were included in this analysis. Work schedule and physical labour were self-reported on the baseline questionnaire, and every 6 months thereafter the women reported the duration of their ongoing pregnancy attempt. Multivariable accelerated failure time models were used to estimate time ratios (TR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among the 1739 women (median age=33 years, 93% Caucasian) the estimated proportions of women not pregnant after 12 and 24 months were 16% and 5%, respectively. None of the various shift work patterns were associated with duration of pregnancy attempt (as a surrogate for fecundity). However, women working >40 h/week had a 20% (95% CI 7 to 35%) longer median duration of pregnancy attempt compared to women working 21-40 h/week (p-trend=0.005). Women whose work entailed heavy lifting or moving (ie, 25+ pounds) >15 times/day also had a longer median duration of pregnancy attempt (adjusted TR=1.49; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.85) compared to women who never lifted or moved heavy loads (p-trend=0.002). The association between heavy moving and lifting and duration of pregnancy attempt was more pronounced among overweight or obese women (body mass index, BMI<25: TR=1.17; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.56; BMI≥25: TR=2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.79; p-interaction=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Working greater than 40 h per week and greater frequency of lifting or moving a heavy load were associated with reduced fecundity in a cohort of nurses planning pregnancy. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of work schedule and physical factors with fecundity. METHODS:Women currently employed outside the home and trying to get pregnant (n=1739) in the Nurses' Health Study 3 cohort (2010-2014) were included in this analysis. Work schedule and physical labour were self-reported on the baseline questionnaire, and every 6 months thereafter the women reported the duration of their ongoing pregnancy attempt. Multivariable accelerated failure time models were used to estimate time ratios (TR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among the 1739 women (median age=33 years, 93% Caucasian) the estimated proportions of women not pregnant after 12 and 24 months were 16% and 5%, respectively. None of the various shift work patterns were associated with duration of pregnancy attempt (as a surrogate for fecundity). However, women working >40 h/week had a 20% (95% CI 7 to 35%) longer median duration of pregnancy attempt compared to women working 21-40 h/week (p-trend=0.005). Women whose work entailed heavy lifting or moving (ie, 25+ pounds) >15 times/day also had a longer median duration of pregnancy attempt (adjusted TR=1.49; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.85) compared to women who never lifted or moved heavy loads (p-trend=0.002). The association between heavy moving and lifting and duration of pregnancy attempt was more pronounced among overweight or obesewomen (body mass index, BMI<25: TR=1.17; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.56; BMI≥25: TR=2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.79; p-interaction=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Working greater than 40 h per week and greater frequency of lifting or moving a heavy load were associated with reduced fecundity in a cohort of nurses planning pregnancy. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fertility < Methodology, speciality; Physical work < Materials, exposures and occupational groups
Authors: Keith T Palmer; Matteo Bonzini; E Clare Harris; Cathy Linaker; Jens Peter Bonde Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Candice Y Johnson; Lauren J Tanz; Christina C Lawson; Penelope P Howards; Elizabeth R Bertone-Johnson; A Heather Eliassen; Eva S Schernhammer; Janet W Rich-Edwards Journal: Arch Environ Occup Health Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 1.663
Authors: Sarah J Pugh; Enrique F Schisterman; Richard W Browne; Anne M Lynch; Sunni L Mumford; Neil J Perkins; Robert Silver; Lindsey Sjaarda; Joseph B Stanford; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Brian Wilcox; Katherine L Grantz Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Irene Souter; Paige L Williams; Jennifer B Ford; Russ Hauser; Jorge E Chavarro; Audrey J Gaskins Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sydney Kaye Willis; Elizabeth Elliott Hatch; Amelia Kent Wesselink; Kenneth Jay Rothman; Ellen Margrethe Mikkelsen; Lauren Anne Wise Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Audrey J Gaskins; Jorge E Chavarro; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Stacey A Missmer; Francine Laden; Scott A Henn; Christina C Lawson Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Todd R Sponholtz; Traci N Bethea; Edward A Ruiz-Narváez; Renee Boynton-Jarrett; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg; Lauren A Wise Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Claudia R C Moreno; Elaine C Marqueze; Charli Sargent; Kenneth P Wright Jr; Sally A Ferguson; Philip Tucker Journal: Ind Health Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.179