Objectives To examine the association of employment and work schedule with shorter DNA telomeres, a marker of cellular ageing and disease risk factor, and consider whether differences were related to health, behaviours and sociodemographic factors, or varied by stress levels or menopausal status.
Methods This cross-sectional analysis of 608 women aged 35–74 in the Sister Study examined determinants of relative telomere length (rTL) measured by quantitative PCR in leucocyte DNA. Age-adjusted regression models estimated base pair (bp) rTL differences for current and lifetime schedule characteristics (ie, part-time, full-time or overtime hours; multiple jobs; irregular hours; shiftwork; work at night). Covariates included race, smoking, perceived stress, sleep, physical activity, health and menopausal status, education, marital status, live births, children under 18, measured body mass index and urinary stress hormones.
Results Compared with non-employed women with moderate or substantial past work histories (n=190), those currently working full-time (n=247; median 40 h/week) had a shorter rTL, an age-adjusted difference of −329 bp (95% CI −110 to −548). Longer-duration full-time work was also associated with shorter rTL (age-adjusted difference of −472 bp, 95% CI −786 to −158 for 20+ vs 1–5 years). Findings were not explained by health and demographic covariates. However, rTL differences for working at least full-time were greater in women with higher stress and epinephrine levels.
Conclusions Current and long-term full-time work were associated with shorter rTL, with differences of similar magnitude to smoking and history of heart disease or diabetes. Longitudinal data with specific stress measures are needed to further evaluate the impact of work schedule on rTL.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01 ES044005), and by Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Concept Award (BC045286).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Review Board of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, National Institutes of Health.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.