Black Pregnant Worker in Office

(Credit: © Adobe Stock)

In a Nutshell

  • Each extra hour of forward bending on the job carried the largest hourly jump in miscarriage risk, and it was the only one of the three demands where more exposure reliably meant more risk.
  • Standing carried a much smaller hourly risk, but because people stand for far longer than they bend, the authors caution that a small per-hour effect can still add up over a full shift.
  • Women who had taken sick leave the week before a loss showed higher risk, yet women who never missed work showed raised risk too, which points away from the idea that the link is only about women who were already unwell.

For the millions of women who spend their shifts on their feet, the nurses, cashiers, teachers, and warehouse workers, a large new study from Denmark points to a hard question about early pregnancy. Time spent standing, walking, and especially bending forward on the job was tied to a higher risk of miscarriage, though the link was strongest and steadiest for forward bending.

In a study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (BMJ Group), researchers tracked more than 800,000 pregnancies among working women across Denmark. Of the three physical demands they measured, forward bending stood out, showing the clearest and most consistent link to pregnancy loss. That connection held up even after the team accounted for a woman’s age, education, and pregnancy history.

Timing matters because Denmark has no formal workplace rules covering how much a pregnant employee should stand, walk, or bend during the first months of pregnancy. Miscarriage is already the most common complication of pregnancy, affecting roughly 15% of recognized pregnancies, and it can leave lasting emotional pain. How much a physically demanding job adds to that risk has stayed murky, and this study tries to put numbers on it.

How Researchers Measured Miscarriage Risk on the Job

A major strength of this work is its size. Researchers drew from a national registry covering employed pregnant women in Denmark from 2004 to 2018, a total of 803,829 pregnancies among 475,312 women. About 10.1% of those pregnancies, or 81,307, ended in miscarriage.

Instead of asking women to remember how demanding their jobs were, which tends to be unreliable, the researchers used a measurement tool built specifically for pregnant workers, called the PRECISE job exposure matrix. It drew on motion-sensor readings from more than 400 working women across over 100 job types, plus ratings from three experts covering more than 1,000 job classifications. Each woman was assigned an estimate of how many hours per shift she likely spent standing, walking, or bending the torso at least 30 degrees, based on her occupation code at the start of pregnancy. That gave the team a far more precise estimate than older studies, which lumped workers into broad buckets.

What the Numbers Show

Every additional hour of forward bending was tied to a 36% higher risk of miscarriage in the study’s fully adjusted analysis. Each extra hour of walking was tied to an 18% increase. Standing showed a smaller rise of 3% per hour, still statistically meaningful given the enormous sample.

Forward bending was also the only exposure with a steady dose-response pattern; the more bending a woman did, the more her risk climbed. For standing and walking, risk stopped rising at the heaviest exposure levels, which the authors say leaves some doubt about those findings at the extreme end.

Researchers also separated women who had missed work the week before a loss from those who had not. Both groups showed raised risk. That second result carries weight: if the pattern showed up even among women healthy enough to keep working, the link is harder to dismiss as simply a matter of women who were already sick. In the authors’ words, the elevated hazards among women without absence support the possibility of a causal link between the occupational exposures and risk of miscarriage.

Infographic summarizing a Danish study of more than 800,000 pregnancies showing that workplace activities such as forward bending, walking, and prolonged standing were associated with higher miscarriage risk, with forward bending showing the strongest link.
Infographic by StudyFinds

Why the Smoking Question Complicates Miscarriage Risk

Women in the most physically demanding jobs differed from others in ways that matter. Those who stood the most tended to be younger, had less formal education, and were more likely to smoke during pregnancy. Researchers adjusted for age, education, country of birth, and pregnancy history, but they hit a wall on smoking: individual smoking records are usually collected around week 20, after most miscarriages have already happened, so that data was missing for most cases.

To work around the gap, the team used a separate tool that estimated each woman’s likelihood of smoking from her age, sex, and the calendar year. They are candid that this is an imperfect fix that cannot cleanly isolate smoking’s role. Once they applied it, the standing link faded considerably, while the walking and bending links stayed strong. Study authors call for future studies that track smoking for each individual woman.

Where the Findings Land

Denmark currently has no formal guidance on standing or walking in the first four months of pregnancy, and none at all on forward bending. While not calling for immediate new rules, the researchers argue the findings support giving early pregnancy a place in workplace guidance if further studies confirm the pattern.

They are also upfront about what could throw off the results. Other features of demanding jobs, night shifts or chemical exposure among them, may account for part of what they saw, since these stressors often travel together. Job codes were recorded only once a year, so a woman who shifted to lighter duties mid-pregnancy would not have been captured. And the study could not separate lifting, which often happens alongside bending.

Even with those caveats, a consistent pattern across more than 800,000 pregnancies, built on measured job data rather than memory, is not easy to wave away. For a cashier on an eight-hour shift or an aide who spends her day leaning over patients, the message is that the physical shape of the workday in early pregnancy is worth a serious look, and that the gap in workplace guidance has real work left to fill.


Paper Notes

Limitations

The authors flag several limits. The biggest is smoking: individual records were missing for most miscarriage cases because that information is gathered around week 20, after most losses occur. Their population-level estimate of smoking is an imperfect substitute, partly because smoking habits can shift during pregnancy. They also could not account for other health conditions or for co-exposures like night shifts and workplace chemicals, though chemical exposure is thought to be limited in Denmark. Because each woman’s job code was logged only once a year, mid-pregnancy job changes went unrecorded, which would tend to push results toward showing no effect. The study could not adjust for lifting, which often accompanies bending and may carry its own risk. The leveling-off of risk at the highest standing and walking levels adds uncertainty there. Finally, the authors note possible healthy worker selection bias, where women in poor health may have left demanding jobs before pregnancy, which could mean the true risk is understated.

Funding and Disclosures

The work was supported by the Working Environment Research Fund (grant number 24-2021-04) and the A.P. Møller Foundation (grant number L-2023-00086). The authors declared no competing interests.

Publication Details

Authors: Hannah Nørtoft Frankel, Camilla Sandal Sejbaek, Esben Meulengracht Flachs, Mette Korshøj, Sandra Soegaard Toettenborg, Jens Peter Ellekilde Bonde, Laura Deen, Jonathan Aavang Petersen, Christina Bach Lund, and Luise Mølenberg Begtrup. The authors are affiliated with the Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen; the Department of Public Health at the University of Copenhagen; the Department of Occupational and Social Medicine at Holbæk Hospital; and the Department of Public Health, Section of Environmental Health, at the University of Copenhagen.

Journal: Occupational and Environmental Medicine (BMJ Group)

Paper Title: “Occupational standing, walking and forward bending during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage: a Danish nationwide, register-based, cohort study”

DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2025-110712

Publication Status: Published online ahead of print, first published June 18, 2026.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment