3.9 Article

Overweight children, weight-based teasing and academic performance

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/17477160902846203

关键词

Children; overweight; policy; schools; achievement; stigmatization; students; public health

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [051737, 60284, 30930]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. School performance of overweight children has been found to be inferior to normal weight children; however, the reason(s) for this link between overweight and academic performance remain unclear. Psychosocial factors, such as weight-based teasing, have been proposed as having a possible mediating role, although they remain largely unexplored. Methods. Random parental telephone survey data (N = 1071) of public school students collected as part of the statewide evaluation of Arkansas Act 1220, a law to reduce childhood obesity, were used. Overweight status (body mass index >85(th) percentile for gender and age) and weight-based teasing were examined as predictors of poorer school performance. Results. Overweight status was a significant predictor of poorer school performance (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.01, 2.25), after adjustment for gender, school level, free and reduced lunch participation, and race. However, the addition of weight-based teasing to the model (with weight category and covariates) reduced the weight category parameter estimate by 24%, becoming non-significant (OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 0.93, 2.10) and indicating a possible mediating effect of weight-based teasing on the relationship between weight category and school performance. Weight-based teasing was significantly associated with school performance, with lower odds of strong school performance among weight-based teased children (OR =0.44; 95% CI = 0.27, 0.74). Conclusion. Psychosocial variables, such as weight-based teasing, should be considered in future research examining the impact of childhood obesity on school performance and in future intervention studies.

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

3.9
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