4.2 Review

Anthropometric Measurements in Canadian Children: A Scoping Review

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.17269/cjph.104.4032

Keywords

Anthropometry; body mass index; body composition; pediatrics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to identify what forms of anthropometric measurement are currently being utilized with Canadian children and youth and what are the gaps in the literature on this topic. METHODS: The current study utilized a scoping review methodology in order to achieve the study objectives. Online databases Medline and PubMed and CINAHL were used to search articles from the last decade (2002-2012) that addressed Canadian children aged 2-18 years. SYNTHESIS: 50 studies were included in this review. A variety of anthropometric measurements were identified, including body mass index, waist circumference, hip-to-waist ratio, among others. Six of the included studies (12%) utilized nationally representative data from large-scale studies. BMI was the most reported form of measurement with 88% of studies collecting it. Waist circumference was a distant second with 20% of studies reporting it. Several gaps in the literature exist with regards to First Nations (FN) research; many of the measurement methods were not used. Additionally, FN accounted for only 2.5% of the study's sample. The majority of studies took place in Quebec (29%) and Ontario (27%). CONCLUSION: Body mass index is the most reported method of anthropometric measurement used for children. Efforts should be taken by health care practitioners and researchers to collect other forms of measurement in order to assist in understanding the validity of other measures and their value when used with children. Furthermore, attention needs to be focused on utilizing and studying various forms of anthropometric measurement across all Canadian regions and populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available