Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Differences in METs during work-time across occupational categories of the ISCO-88.

CI, confidence interval; ISCO-88, International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988; METs, metabolic equivalents. Intergroup comparisons (low-intensity vs. moderate-intensity vs. high-intensity group) revealed highly significant differences (p<0.001).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Aerobic capacity and objective SenseWear activity data across occupational groups (n = 303).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Comparison of objective SWMA activity data with subjective IPAQ activity data.

HPA_Recreation_IPAQ / HPA_Work_IPAQ, physical activity duration at high intensity (8 METs) based on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire; HPA_Recreation_SWMA / HPA_Work_SWMA, physical activity duration at high intensity (6–9 METs) measured by the SenseWear Mini armband; MPA_Recreation_IPAQ / MPA_Work_IPAQ, physical activity duration at moderate intensity (3–6 METs) based on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire; MPA_Recreation_SWMA / MPA_Work_SWMA, physical activity duration at moderate intensity (3–6 METs) measured by the SenseWear Mini armband. * Intergroup comparisons (low-intensity vs. moderate-intensity vs. high-intensity group) revealed highly significant differences (p<0.001).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Ratio of workload to maximum work capacity according to occupational group and gender.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Forward stepwise multiple linear regressions with workload [METs] as dependent variable.

More »

Table 3 Expand