Associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with all-cause mortality: an individual participant data meta-analysis
- PMID: 39255999
- PMCID: PMC11671921
- DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2024-108117
Associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with all-cause mortality: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Erratum in
-
Correction: Associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with all-cause mortality: an individual participant data meta-analysis.Br J Sports Med. 2025 Mar 31;59(8):e1. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2024-108117corr1. Br J Sports Med. 2025. PMID: 40164450 No abstract available.
Abstract
Objective: Health effects of different physical activity domains (ie, during leisure time, work and transport) are generally considered positive. Using Active Worker consortium data, we assessed independent associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity (OPA and LTPA) with all-cause mortality.
Design: Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.
Data source: Published and unpublished cohort study data.
Eligibility criteria: Working participants aged 18-65 years.
Methods: After data harmonisation, we assessed associations of OPA and LTPA with all-cause mortality. In stage 1, we analysed data from each study separately using Cox survival regression, and in stage 2, we pooled individual study findings with random-effects modelling.
Results: In 22 studies with up to 590 497 participants from 11 countries, during a mean follow-up of 23.1 (SD: 6.8) years, 99 743 (16%) participants died. Adjusted for LTPA, body mass index, age, smoking and education level, summary (ie, stage 2) hazard ration (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for low, moderate and high OPA among men (n=2 96 134) were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03), 1.05 (1.01 to 1.10) and 1.12 (1.03 to 1.23), respectively. For women (n=2 94 364), HRs (95% CI) were 0.98 (0.92 to 1.04), 0.96 (0.92 to 1.00) and 0.97 (0.86 to 1.10), respectively. In contrast, higher levels of LTPA were inversely associated with mortality for both genders. For example, for women HR for low, moderate and high compared with sedentary LTPA were 0.85 (0.81 to 0.89), 0.78 (0.74 to 0.81) and 0.75 (0.65 to 0.88), respectively. Effects were attenuated when adjusting for income (although data on income were available from only 9 and 6 studies, for men and women, respectively).
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that OPA may not result in the same beneficial health effects as LTPA.
Keywords: Public health.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures

References
-
- Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB. In: Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 4th. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008. Ecological models of health behavior; pp. 465–82. edn.
-
- World Health Organization . WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. - PubMed
-
- Holtermann A, Krause N, van der Beek AJ, et al. The physical activity paradox: six reasons why occupational physical activity (OPA) does not confer the cardiovascular health benefits that leisure time physical activity does. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:149–50. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097965. - DOI - PubMed