Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and related factors in bank employees according to different defining criteria, Vitória/ES, Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2013(01)OA11Keywords:
Metabolic Syndrome, Employees, Obesity, Insulin ResistanceAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and related factors in bank employees in the city of Vitória/ES, Brazil. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that included 521 working men and women >;20 years of age. Sociodemographic, lifestyle, anthropometric, biochemical, and hemodynamic characteristics were collected. Metabolic syndrome was diagnosed using the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program-ATPIII and the International Diabetes Federation. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the crude and adjusted OR of the variables, and the statistical level of significance was set at 5.0%. RESULTS: We identified 86 (17.2%) and 113 (22.6%) subjects with metabolic syndrome according to the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program-ATPIII and the International Diabetes Federation, respectively. The risk of developing metabolic syndrome was higher in individuals with a high school education (OR 2.6 [CI95%, 1.1-6.1]). In overweight and obese subjects, the risks were also higher (OR 12.6 [CI95%, 4.8-33.2, p = 0.000] and OR 43.7% [CI95%, 16.1-118.9, p = 0.000], respectively). CONCLUSION: A large number of bank employees have metabolic syndrome, which can be associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Individuals who had college degrees had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome; this finding can be explained by the high rates of overweight and obesity found in subjects with college and graduate school educations.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2013-01-01
Issue
Section
Clinical Sciences
How to Cite
Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and related factors in bank employees according to different defining criteria, Vitória/ES, Brazil . (2013). Clinics, 68(1), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2013(01)OA11