Association of leisure and occupational physical activities and health-related quality of life: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between different levels of physical activity (PA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the general Iranian population across sex groups. The current study aims to investigate the association between PA and HRQoL across sex groups, various types of physical activity (leisure time and occupational) and different dimensions of HRQoL in a large population of Tehranian adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS). Data was collected from 7800 adults on their PA habits and HRQoL. Information on PA and HRQoL were assessed using the Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ) and Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2), respectively. Poor HRQoL was defined as the first quartile of HRQoL scores and logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between physical activity levels and poor HRQoL. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 46.4 ± 14.9 years and 45.6% of them were male. Levels of PA were significantly associated with most subscales of HRQoL in both men (p < 0.05) and women (p < 0.01). In both sexes, leisure time PA was significantly correlated to all subscales of HRQoL (p < 0.05) except for bodily pain in both sexes and for social functioning and role emotional in men. In adjusted models, men with both moderate (OR: 1.55, 95%CI: 1.18-2.04; p = 0.002) and low (OR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.11-1.91; p = 0.007) levels of PA had a significantly higher chance of reporting poor mental component summary (MCS) compared to their counterparts with high levels of PA. Furthermore, women with low levels of PA had a significantly higher chance of reporting poor physical component summary (PCS) (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.63-3.49; p < 0.001) compared to those with high levels of PA. CONCLUSION: The findings show an association between PA and both domains of HRQoL in men and mostly the physical domain in women, suggesting a sex-specific pattern for this association, which could be considered to motivate participation in PA programs in future health promotion interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".