Table 4. Hazard ratios (HRs) for obesity/overweight (BMI > 25 kg/m2) in Japan and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) in Finland during follow-up.
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |
Japanese men (n = 2264) | ||||||||
Managers | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||||
Professionals | 0.90 | 0.56, 1.46 | 0.91 | 0.56, 1.47 | 0.91 | 0.56, 1.48 | 0.88 | 0.54, 1.43 |
Clerical employees | 0.79 | 0.48, 1.30 | 0.82 | 0.49, 1.35 | 0.82 | 0.50, 1.36 | 0.80 | 0.48, 1.33 |
Manual workers | 0.90 | 0.51, 1.59 | 0.96 | 0.53, 1.75 | 1.00 | 0.55, 1.83 | 0.93 | 0.51, 1.70 |
P-value for trend | 0.328 | 0.544 | 0.613 | 0.543 | ||||
Finnish men (n = 1306) | ||||||||
Managers | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||||
Professionals | 1.47 | 1.04, 2.08 | 1.48 | 1.04, 2.12 | 1.50 | 1.05, 2.15 | 1.39 | 0.97, 2.00 |
Clerical employees | 1.49 | 0.98, 2.26 | 1.61 | 1.04, 2.49 | 1.58 | 1.02, 2.46 | 1.57 | 1.00, 2.45 |
Manual workers | 1.59 | 1.16, 2.17 | 1.57 | 1.09, 2.25 | 1.48 | 1.03, 2.13 | 1.38 | 0.95, 2.00 |
P-value for trend | 0.003 | 0.012 | 0.031 | 0.078 | ||||
Japanese women (n = 1221) | ||||||||
Professionalsa | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||||
Clerical employees | 0.50 | 0.27, 0.92 | 0.46 | 0.23, 0.91 | 0.49 | 0.24, 0.97 | 0.44 | 0.22, 0.90 |
P-value for trend | 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.042 | 0.025 | ||||
Finnish women (n = 5778) | ||||||||
Professionalsa | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||||
Clerical employees | 1.45 | 1.27, 1.66 | 1.50 | 1.29, 1.73 | 1.49 | 1.29, 1.72 | 1.47 | 1.26, 1.70 |
Manual workers | 1.81 | 1.51, 2.18 | 1.90 | 1.56, 2.31 | 1.96 | 1.61, 2.39 | 1.90 | 1.55, 2.32 |
P-value for trend | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index.
Model 1 = age + age squared; Model 2 = Model 1 + job control and demands + working overtime; Model 3 = Model 2 + marital status + social relations; Model 4 = Model 3 + smoking + alcohol use + physical inactivity.
aManagers and professionals combined.