3.8 Article

Trends in overweight and obesity in Portugal: The National Health Surveys 1995-6 and 1998-9

Journal

OBESITY RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 1141-1145

Publisher

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2005.135

Keywords

epidemiology; national survey; educational level; geographic distribution; trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess overweight and obesity trends in the Portuguese population. Research Methods and Procedures: National Health Surveys, conducted in 1995-6 (17,989 men; 20,249 women) and 1998-9 (17,923 men; 20,302 women), were used. Results: In men, the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 39.9% (95% CI: 39.2 to 40.6) and 10.3% (95% CI: 9.9 to 10.7), respectively, in 1995-6, to 42.5% (95% CI: 41.8 to 43.2) and 11.5% (95% CI: 11.0 to 12.0), respectively, in 1998-9. In women, prevalence of obesity increased from 12.7% (95% CI: 12.2 to 13.2) in 1995-6 to 14.2% (95% CI: 13.7 to 14.6) in 1998-9, whereas the prevalence of overweight remained stable: 32.2% (95% CI: 31.6 to 32.9) in 1995-6 and 32.3% (95% CI: 31.6 to 32.9) in 1998-9. In men, prevalence of overweight and obesity were higher among former smokers and educational group of 6 to 12 years, and prevalence of obesity was higher in the Lisbon region. In women, prevalence of overweight and obesity were higher among never smokers, and prevalence of obesity was higher among educational group of -6 years. Prevalence of obesity was higher in the Alentejo region, and overweight was higher in the Center region. Finally, prevalence of obesity increased in both sexes for all strata studied (age, smoking status, educational level, and geographic region), whereas prevalence of overweight increased only in men, Discussion: In Portugal, overweight and obesity levels are related to sociodemographic factors; the increase in obesity levels stresses the need for preventive measures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available