Table 3.
Daily activity-related energy expenditure as a proportion (mean [SD]; median (IQR)) of total energy expenditure by employment statusab.
| Domains of activities | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men (N = 6,131) | Women (N = 9,452) | |||||||||
| Employment status | N | Leisure | Occupation | House | All domains | N | Leisure | Occupation | Household | All domains |
| Full-time | 4614 | 7.2 [6.4] | 25.9 [12.2] | 6.2 [4.8] | 39.6 [10.4] | 4123 | 6.4 [5.8] | 20.7 [9.4] | 11.7 [6.2] | 39.0 [9.3] |
| 5.6 (8.7) | 24.4 (19.2) | 5.2 (5.9) | 39.8 (15.0) | 4.8 (7.2) | 19.1 (13.2) | 10.5 (7.3) | 38.6 (13.1) | |||
| Part-time | 382 | 7.4 [7.5] | 20.1 [12.2] | 7.7 [6.2] | 35.5 [10.8] | 2166 | 6.5 [5.7] | 14.8 [9.4] | 15.4 [7.7] | 36.8 [9.6] |
| 5.4 (8.5) | 18.3 (18.4) | 6.2 (7.0) | 35.0 (14.2) | 5.0 (7.0) | 13.3 (13.2) | 13.8 (8.8) | 36.5 (13.2) | |||
| Not employed/homemaker/student/other | 372 | 7.2 [7.2] | 19.7 [16.4] | 8.8 [7.4] | 35.9 [13.6] | 1855 | 6.5 [6.1] | 7.2 [10.7] | 21.3 [10.7] | 35.0 [11.6] |
| 5.0 (9.8) | 17.7 (29.5) | 7.2 (9.3) | 37.1 (20.2) | 4.9 (7.8) | 1.9 (10.5) | 19.6 (14.0) | 34.6 (16.2) | |||
| Retired | 763 | 10.8 [8.5] | 6.5 [10.6] | 11.6 [8.7] | 28.9 [11.8] | 1308 | 7.7 [6.7] | 4.0 [7.3] | 18.9 [8.7] | 30.7 [10.4] |
| 9.1 (11.9) | 0.9 (9.0) | 9.6 (11.8) | 28.4 (15.3) | 5.9 (8.5) | 0.7 (4.6) | 17.7 (10.7) | 30.0 (13.4) | |||
| Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 | P<.001 | ||||
a Includes people recruited in the first six recruitment waves (February 2001-January 2005) but excludes people who did not return a PYTPAQ (n = 2,405), pregnant women (n = 31), people who were recruited as 'second in household' in the first recruitment wav e (n = 344), people with prior history of cancer (n = 33), and people with missing data on body weight or height (n = 39). Note: 3 men and 5 women had missing data on employment status.
b Differences in median or distribution shape between employment status groups for each domain were compared by using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests and were statistically significant (P<.001), Statistical significance of the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test in each domain can be interpreted as follows: at least one median or distribution shape of the daily activity-related energy expenditure in a particular employment status group significantly differed from another median or distribution shape in another employment status group.