4.3 Article

Measuring Obesity among School-aged Youth in India: A Comparison of Three Growth References

期刊

INDIAN PEDIATRICS
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 105-110

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13312-011-0041-x

关键词

Adolescents; Growth reference; India; Measurement; Obesity

资金

  1. University of Minnesota's Obesity Prevention Center (Stigler, PI)
  2. University of Texas School of Public Health (Stigler, PI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare three growth references that can be used to assess the weight status of school-aged youth living in India, with a particular focus on identifying overweight and obese youth. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Kappa scores were used to measure agreement between growth references. Regression models were used to test for differences in weight status by grade level, gender, and school type, using each growth reference. Setting: Private (n=4) and Government schools (n=4) in Delhi, India. Participants: Students (n=1818) in eighth and tenth grade attending the schools. Main outcome measures: Weight status was derived using age- and gender-specific cut-points provided by: (a) a national growth reference specific to India; (b) an international reference recommended by the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF); and (c) a new international reference recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Results: The IOTF reference consistently classified participants in a lower weight status category, compared with the national reference (kappa=0.57) and the WHO reference (kappa=0.69). The agreement between the WHO and the national references was higher (kappa=0.84). Conclusions: To date, all published studies of childhood obesity in India have used the IOTF reference, the national reference, or an old WHO reference to measure weight status among school-going youth. The new WHO reference may be a better choice. Compared to the IOTF reference, it does not appear to underestimate obesity and can still be used to compare trends, globally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据