摘要:

目的  評價中國職業(yè)人群肥胖強化健走處方干預效果，為推廣適合中國職業(yè)人群適宜的體重控制方案提供借鑒。

方法  基于2021年5 — 8月中國職業(yè)人群健走項目，招募來自全國12個省份的31528名在職人員進行為期100 d的健走干預，根據(jù)是否接受強化干預分為強化干預組和陽性對照組（強化干預組實施4個健走處方，陽性對照組實行3個健走處方），對完成基線問卷調(diào)查和體格檢查且健走數(shù)據(jù)完整的28285名在職人員采用傾向得分匹配，共得到5208對10416名研究對象，比較2組職業(yè)人群干預前后體重、體質(zhì)指數(shù)、腰圍、臀圍和體脂率的變化情況以對中國職業(yè)人群肥胖強化健走處方的干預效果進行評價。

結(jié)果  強化干預組職業(yè)人群萬步率、集中健走率、4個處方完成率、體重監(jiān)測完成率及陽性對照組萬步率、集中健走率、3個處方完成率P25值和平均值均 > 85 %，2組職業(yè)人群的干預依從性均較好；強化干預組和陽性對照組職業(yè)人群的體重、體質(zhì)指數(shù)、腰圍、臀圍、體脂率在干預前分別為（65.98 ± 11.86）kg和（65.23 ± 11.87）kg、（23.77 ± 3.29）和（23.78 ± 3.30）、（82.75 ± 10.25）cm和（82.54 ± 10.14）cm、（96.15 ± 7.37）cm和（96.06 ± 7.17）cm、（27.92 ± 6.18）%和（27.75 ± 6.37）%，在干預后分別為（64.18 ± 11.50）kg和（63.86 ± 11.58）kg、（23.18 ± 3.16）和（23.31 ± 3.19）、（81.33 ± 10.05）cm和（81.09 ± 9.99）cm、（95.16 ± 6.88）cm和（94.97 ± 6.70）cm、（26.89 ± 6.11）%和（27.00 ± 6.29）%；干預前后強化干預組和陽性對照組職業(yè)人群分別比較，干預前、后2組職業(yè)人群的體重、體質(zhì)指數(shù)、腰圍、臀圍和體脂率差異均有統(tǒng)計學意義（均P < 0.01）；干預前、后2組職業(yè)人群比較，干預前強化干預組職業(yè)人群的體重高于陽性對照組職業(yè)人群（t = – 3.25，P = 0.001）；協(xié)方差分析結(jié)果顯示，干預后強化干預組職業(yè)人群的體重、體質(zhì)指數(shù)和體脂率均低于陽性對照組職業(yè)人群（均P < 0.01）。通過多水平模型結(jié)合倍差法校正性別、年齡、文化程度、職業(yè)、居住地、是否患慢性病、慢性病知識得分、心理量表得分和睡眠時間等混雜因素后結(jié)果顯示，干預后強化干預組職業(yè)人群體脂率較陽性對照組多下降了0.29 %（t = – 2.05，P = 0.04）；進一步進行亞組分析結(jié)果顯示，干預前體質(zhì)指數(shù)水平為超重的職業(yè)人群通過強化干預可促進體重、體質(zhì)指數(shù)和體脂率的下降，干預前體質(zhì)指數(shù)水平為肥胖的職業(yè)人群通過強化干預可促進體質(zhì)指數(shù)和體脂率的下降，干預前體脂率水平為超重和肥胖的職業(yè)人群通過強化干預可促進體脂率的下降。

結(jié)論  4個健走處方的強化干預模式可進一步降低中國超重和肥胖職業(yè)人群的肥胖程度，對體脂率的健康受益更大。

Abstract:

Objective  To evaluate intervention effect of intensive brisk walking prescription on obesity in Chinese occupational population and to provide a reference for popularizing appropriate weight control program among occupational population in China.

Methods  All the participants of the study were from a 100-day vigorous walking program conducted among 31 528 in service employees in 12 provincial-level administrative divisions of China during May – August 2021 and the participants were divided into an intervention group required to complete a 4 sets of walking schedule in a day (10, 10, 15, 15 minutes of walking continuously at the speed of 100 – 150 steps per minute) and a positive control group with the same requirement as the intervention group but only 3 sets of waling schedule (10, 10, 15 minutes); the body weight in kg (BW) of the participants were measured at least once a week during the program period. From the 28 285 participants with complete information on baseline questionnaire survey and data on physical examination and vigorous waling, 5 208 pairs of intervention and control individuals were matched by tendency scores. The changes in BW, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference in cm (WC), hip circumference in cm (HC) and body fat rate in % (BFR) of the intervention and control individuals before and after the intervention were compared to evaluate the effect of intensive brisk walking prescription on the obesity indicators.

Results  For both the intervention and positive control group, the percentages and the 25th percentiles of the proportions of individuals having 10 000 steps walking per day, group walking, completing 4/3 sets of walking schedule, and BW measuring once a week were all more than 85%, indicating a good compliance with the program of the participants. Compared to those at the beginning of the intervention program, there were significant differences at the end of the intervention for both the intervention and the positive control groups in the average values of BW (64.18 ± 11.50 vs. 65.98 ± 11.86 and 63.86 ± 11.58 vs. 65.23 ± 11.87), BMI (23.18 ± 3.16 vs. 23.77 ± 3.29 and 23.31 ± 3.19 vs. 23.78 ± 3.30), WC (81.33 ± 10.05 vs. 82.75 ± 10.25 and 81.09 ± 9.99 vs. 82.54 ± 10.14), HC (95.16 ± 6.88 vs. 96.15 ± 7.37 and 94.97 ± 6.70 vs. 96.06 ± 7.17), and BFR (26.89 ± 6.11 vs. 27.92 ± 6.18 and 27.00 ± 6.29 vs. 27.75 ± 6.37), respectively (all P < 0.01). The BW of the intensive intervention group was significantly higher than that of positive control group at the beginning of the intervention (t = – 3.25, P = 0.0012). The results of covariance analysis showed that the BW, BMI and BFR of the intensive intervention group were significantly lower than those of positive control group by the end of intervention (all P < 0.01). After adjusting confounding factors such as sex, age, residence, education, occupation, chronic disease, score for knowledge about chronic disease, psychological scale score and sleeping time, the results of multilevel model combined with multiple difference method revealed a higher decline of 0.29% in BFR of intensive intervention group compared to that of positive control group at the end of intensive intervention (t = – 2.05, P = 0.04). Further subgroup analysis demonstrated that the intensive intervention promoted the decrease of BW, BMI and BFR for the individuals with the BMI indicating overweight status, the decrease of BMI and BFR for the individuals with the BMI indicating obesity status, and the decrease of BFR for the individuals with the BMI indicating both overweight or obesity at the beginning of the intervention.

Conclusion  The short-term intensive intervention with four sets of vigorous walking schedule could reduce obesity indicators among overweight and obese in service employees in China, especially for the decline of body fat rate.

表  1   中國職業(yè)人群干預前、后肥胖相關指標比較（$bar x pm s$）

肥胖相關指標干預前干預后強化干預組陽性對照組強化干預組陽性對照組 體重（kg）65.98 ± 11.86 b65.23 ± 11.8764.18 ± 11.50 ac63.86 ± 11.58 a體質(zhì)指數(shù)23.77 ± 3.2923.78 ± 3.3023.18 ± 3.16 ac23.31 ± 3.19 a腰圍（cm）82.75 ± 10.2582.54 ± 10.1481.33 ± 10.05a81.09 ± 9.99 a臀圍（cm）96.15 ± 7.3796.06 ± 7.1795.16 ± 6.88 a94.97 ± 6.70 a體脂率（%）27.92 ± 6.1827.75 ± 6.3726.89 ± 6.11 ac27.00 ± 6.29 a 　　注：干預后與干預前同組別比較，a P < 0.01；與干預前陽性對照組比較，b P < 0.01；與干預后陽性對照組比較，c P < 0.01。

表  2   強化干預對中國職業(yè)人群肥胖相關指標效應的亞組分析

亞組體重體質(zhì)指數(shù)腰圍臀圍體脂率 性別 男性 – 0.53（ – 1.35～0.30） – 0.16（ – 0.42～0.10） 0.11（ – 0.62～0.84） 0.07（ – 0.52～0.65） – 0.28（ – 0.64～0.09） 女性 – 0.37（ – 0.93～0.19） – 0.12（ – 0.32～0.08） – 0.02（ – 0.58～0.55） – 0.02（ – 0.49～0.44） – 0.33（ – 0.68～0.03） 年齡（歲） 20～29 – 0.11（ – 1.30～1.09） – 0.01（ – 0.43～0.40） 0.03（ – 1.09～1.15） – 0.14（ – 1.05～0.77） – 0.02（ – 0.75～0.70） 30～39 – 0.62（ – 1.56～0.32） – 0.23（ – 0.55～0.09） 0.07（ – 0.83～0.96） – 0.10（ – 0.83～0.64） – 0.49（ – 1.01～0.03） 40～49 – 0.59（ – 1.32～0.15） – 0.18（ – 0.43～0.06） 0.07（ – 0.62～0.76） 0.15（ – 0.42～0.72） – 0.38（ – 0.77～0.01） 50～65 – 0.12（ – 1.18～0.94） – 0.02（ – 0.35～0.32） – 0.11（ – 1.10～0.87） 0.03（ – 0.76～0.83） – 0.15（ – 0.68～0.38） 干預前體質(zhì)指數(shù)水平 正常 – 0.23（ – 0.64～0.18） – 0.06（ – 0.18～0.07） 0.13（ – 0.32～0.59） 0.11（ – 0.28～0.51） – 0.25（ – 0.52～0.01） 超重 – 0.61（ – 1.15～ – 0.07） a – 0.20（ – 0.33～ – 0.06） b – 0.14（ – 0.75～0.46） – 0.09（ – 0.61～0.44） – 0.29（ – 0.51～ – 0.07） a 肥胖 – 1.08（ – 2.18～0.03） – 0.41（ – 0.74～ – 0.07） a 0.45（ – 0.78～1.68） 0.11（ – 0.96～1.18） – 0.65（ – 1.05～ – 0.25） b 干預前腰圍水平 正常 – 0.35（ – 0.85～0.15） – 0.10（ – 0.27～0.07） – 0.02（ – 0.40～0.37） 0.15（ – 0.27～0.58） – 0.28（ – 0.60～0.05） 中心性肥胖前期 – 0.42（ – 1.13～0.30） – 0.14（ – 0.39～0.11） – 0.02（ – 0.35～0.31） – 0.04（ – 0.61～0.53） – 0.25（ – 0.68～0.17） 中心性肥胖 – 0.57（ – 1.37～0.23） – 0.16（ – 0.42～0.11） 0.16（ – 0.42～0.74） – 0.13（ – 0.71～0.45） – 0.34（ – 0.72～0.03） 干預前體脂率水平 正常 – 0.29（ – 0.96～0.37） – 0.05（ – 0.24～0.14） 0.14（ – 0.53～0.81） 0.04（ – 0.52～0.61） 0.06（ – 0.27～0.39） 超重 – 0.42（ – 0.95～0.11） – 0.10（ – 0.24～0.04） 0.17（ – 0.44～0.77） 0.16（ – 0.36～0.68） – 0.36（ – 0.57～ – 0.16） b 肥胖 – 0.53（ – 1.19～0.13） – 0.20（ – 0.42～0.02） – 0.22（ – 0.90～0.47） – 0.19（ – 0.76～0.39） – 0.49（ – 0.81～ – 0.16） b 　　注：a P < 0.05；b P < 0.01。 [1]

World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight[EB/OL]. (2021 – 04 – 11)[2022 – 03 – 11]. https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight.

[2]

Wang LM, Zhou B, Zhao ZP, et al. Body - mass index and obesity in urban and rural China: findings from consecutive nationally represen-tative surveys during 2004 – 18[J]. The Lancet, 2021, 398(10294): 53 – 63. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00798-4

[3]

Pan XF, Wang LM, Pan A. Epidemiology and determinants of obesity in China[J]. The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2021, 9(6): 373 – 392. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00045-0

[4]

Seravalle G, Grassi G. Obesity and hypertension[J]. Pharmacological Research, 2017, 122: 1 – 7. DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.05.013

[5]

Riaz H, Khan MS, Siddiqi TJ, et al. Association between obesity and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies[J]. JAMA Network Open, 2018, 1(7): e183788. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3788

[6]

Powell-Wiley TM, Poirier P, Burke LE, et al. Obesity and cardio-vascular disease: a scientific statement from the American heart association[J]. Circulation, 2021, 143(21): e984 – e1010.

[7]

Csige I, Ujvárosy D, Szabó Z, et al. The impact of obesity on the cardiovascular system[J]. Journal of Diabetes Research, 2018, 2018: 3407306.

[8]

The Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases Collaboration (BMI Mediated Effects). Metabolic mediators of the effects of body - mass index, overweight, and obesity on coronary heart disease and stroke: a pooled analysis of 97 prospective cohorts with 1·8 million participants[J]. The Lancet, 2014, 383(9921): 970 – 983. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61836-X

[9]

Zhou MG, Wang HD, Zeng XY, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990 – 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017[J]. The Lancet, 2019, 394(10204): 1145 – 1158. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1

[10]

Pe?alvo JL, Sagastume D, Mertens E, et al. Effectiveness of work-place wellness programmes for dietary habits, overweight, and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta - analysis[J]. The Lancet Public Health, 2021, 6(9): e648 – e660. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00140-7

[11]

Muollo V, Rossi AP, Milanese C, et al. The effects of exercise and diet program in overweight people-Nordic walking versus walk-ing[J]. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2019, 14: 1555 – 1565. DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S217570

[12]

Runenko SD, Achkasov EE, Volodina KA, et al. Nordic walking as an effective physical activity for weight loss among overweight young adults in high schools[J]. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 2020, 60(2): 294 – 301.

[13]

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure[J]. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2001, 16(9): 606 – 613. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

[14]

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD - 7[J]. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2006, 166(10): 1092 – 1097. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

[15] 祁冰潔, 胥馨尹, 張新, 等. 四川省慢性病核心信息知曉情況分析[J]. 現(xiàn)代預防醫(yī)學, 2022, 49(5): 918 – 921. [16] 中華人民共和國國家衛(wèi)生和計劃生育委員會. WS/T 428 — 2013成人體重判定[S]. 北京: 中國標準出版社, 2013. [17] 郭吟, 陳文鶴. 肥胖癥與運動減肥效果的影響因素[J]. 上海體育學院學報, 2010, 34(3): 64 – 66,94. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5498.2010.03.016 [18] 蔣煒, 趙一凡, 楊幸子, 等. 2016年中國職業(yè)人群健走激勵效果及相關因素分析[J]. 中華預防醫(yī)學雜志, 2018, 52(5): 517 – 523. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2018.05.011 [19] 宋俊辰, 李紅娟, 蔣玖君, 等. 健步走對職業(yè)人群健康相關指標干預效果及影響因素研究[J]. 中國慢性病預防與控制, 2020, 28(7): 518 – 523. [20] 徐海峰, 湯海英, 羅衛(wèi)平, 等. 不同健走強度對職業(yè)人群身體指標變化的影響[J]. 中國預防醫(yī)學雜志, 2021, 22(6): 451 – 454. [21] 李鎰沖, 趙一凡, 楊幸子, 等. 短期健走干預對職業(yè)人群體重指數(shù)、腰圍及其相關指標的影響[J]. 中華預防醫(yī)學雜志, 2019, 53(2): 212 – 217. [22] 陳先獻, 徐聰, 任杰, 等. 健步走對職業(yè)人群慢性病相關健康指標的影響[J]. 中國慢性病預防與控制, 2021, 29(10): 786 – 789. [23] 李智文, 任愛國. 傾向評分法在SAS軟件中的實現(xiàn)[J]. 中國生育健康雜志, 2010, 21(5): 320,封3,封4,297. [24]

Mache S, Jensen S, Linnig S, et al. Do overweight workers profit by workplace health promotion, more than their normal - weight peers? Evaluation of a worksite intervention[J]. Journal of Occupa-tional Medicine and Toxicology, 2015, 10(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/s12995-015-0068-3

[25]

Melam GR, Alhusaini AA, Buragadda S, et al. Impact of brisk walking and aerobics in overweight women[J]. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2016, 28(1): 293 – 297. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.293

[26]

Estrada RK, Bacardí-Gascon M, Jiménez-Cruz A. Efficacy of self - monitoring in weight loss: a systematic review of randomized con-trolled studies[J]. Nutricion Hospitalaria, 2015, 32(6): 2472 – 2477.

[27]

Berry R, Kassavou A, Sutton S. Does self - monitoring diet and physical activity behaviors using digital technology support adults with obesity or overweight to lose weight? A systematic literature review with meta-analysis[J]. Obesity Reviews, 2021, 22(10): e13306.

[28]

Painter SL, Ahmed R, Hill JO, et al. What matters in weight loss? An in - depth analysis of self - monitoring[J]. Journal of Medical Inter-net Research, 2017, 19(5): e160. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7457

相關知識

糖尿病人群社區(qū)健康干預效果評價
健康教育評價干預效果評價.PPT
線上膳食干預對肥胖人群體重控制效果
國家衛(wèi)健委等八部門：加大重點人群職業(yè)健康素養(yǎng)干預力度
體檢人群中乙型肝炎患者健康干預效果評價
肥胖健康干預方案.pptx
簡述針對肥胖高危人群的健康干預目標和措施。
2022年中國亞健康評估干預行業(yè)分析，亞健康人群數(shù)量不斷增長，行業(yè)發(fā)展前景廣闊「圖」
高強度間歇訓練與中強度持續(xù)訓練對超重/肥胖成人最大脂肪氧化率的干預效果與劑量
職業(yè)健康評價實施方案

網(wǎng)址: 中國職業(yè)人群肥胖強化健走處方干預效果評價 http://m.u1s5d6.cn/newsview885806.html