Occupational sitting time and risk of all-cause mortality among Japanese workers
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Prolonged sitting is a health risk for cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality, independent of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Epidemiological evaluation of occupational sitting has received little attention, even though it may have a potential impact on workers' health. We prospectively examined the association between occupational sitting time and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Community-dwelling, Japanese workers aged 50-74 years who responded to a questionnaire in 2000-2003 were followed for all-cause mortality through 2011. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to calculate hazard ratios (HR) of all-cause mortality among middle (1- to <3 hours/day) or longer (≥3 hours/day) occupationally sedentary subjects by gender or types of engaging industry ("primary industry" and "secondary or tertiary industry"). RESULTS: During 368,120 person-years of follow-up (average follow-up period, 10.1 years) for the 36,516 subjects, 2209 deaths were identified. Among workers in primary industry, longer duration of occupational sitting was significantly or marginally associated with higher mortality [HR 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.00-1.51 among men; HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.97-1.84 among women]. No associations were found among secondary or tertiary industry workers (men: HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.01; women: HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Occupational sitting time increased all-cause mortality among primary industry workers, however similar relationships were not observed for secondary-tertiary workers. Future studies are needed to confirm detailed dose-response relationships by using objective measures. In addition, studies using cause-specific mortality data would be important to clarify the physiological underlying mechanism.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Increased sedentary behavior may be a risk factor for various health outcomes independent of physical activity.
“Increased sedentary behavior, defined as “any waking behavior with an energy expenditure of 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) or less in a sitting or reclining posture” may be a risk factor for various health outcomes independent of physical activity588–590).”
From Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases 2017 (2018) · cites this paper as [588]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 30
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Matsuzawa Y, Inoue S, Ikeda Y, Sakata T, Saitou Y, Satou Y, et al. New diagnosis and classification of obesity. J Jap Soc Study Obes. 2000;6:18-28.
- Katzmarzyk PT, Church TS, Craig CL, Bouchard C. Sitting time and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 May;41(5):998-1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181930355. · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Kikuchi, H., Inoue, S., Odagiri, Y., Inoue, M., Sawada, N., & Tsugane, S.
- Affiliations
- Tokyo Medical University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Inoue, Shigeru
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
- Published
- 2015-10-05
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 519-528
- ISSN
- 0355-3140 (ISSN-L)
- 1795-990X
- OpenAlex
- W2206422538
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center
- Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
- AXA Research Fund
- University of Tokyo
- University of Tsukuba
- Tokyo University of Agriculture
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26253043, 15K01690, 25282209, 26249073)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- sedentary behavior, all-cause mortality, employee health, sex differences, Japanese workers, middle-aged and older adults
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Aged, Cause of Death, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Industry, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Occupations, Posture, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Time Factors, Health Behavior, Proportional Hazards Models, Occupational Health, Workplace, Sedentary Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review