4.6 Article

Small-Area Estimation and Prioritizing Communities for Obesity Control in Massachusetts

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 99, Issue 3, Pages 511-519

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.137364

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [1R21ES014195]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We developed a method to evaluate geographic and temporal variations in community-level obesity prevalence and used that method to identify communities in Massachusetts that should be considered high priority communities for obesity control. Methods. We developed small-area estimation models to estimate community-level obesity prevalence among community-living adults 18 years or older. Individual-level data from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System from 1999 to 2005 were integrated with community-level data from the 2000 US Census. Small-area estimation models assessed the associations of obesity (body mass index >= 30 kg/m(2)) with individual- and community-level characteristics. A classification system based on level and precision of obesity prevalence estimates was then used to identify high-priority communities. Results. Estimates of the prevalence of community-level obesity ranged from 9% to 38% in 2005 and increased in all communities from 1999 to 2005. Fewer than 7% of communities met the Healthy People 2010 objective of prevalence rates below 15%. The highest prevalence rates occurred in communities characterized by lower income, less education, and more blue-collar workers. Conclusions. Similar to the rest of the nation, Massachusetts faces a great challenge in reaching the national obesity control objective. Targeting high-priority communities identified by small-area estimation may maximize use of limited resources. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:511-519. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.137364)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available