4.3 Article

Some risk factors associated with overweight, stunting and wasting among children under 5 years old

期刊

JORNAL DE PEDIATRIA
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 251-257

出版社

SOC BRASIL PEDIATRIA
DOI: 10.2223/JPED.1776

关键词

nutritional status; children; risk factors; anthropometrics; overweight; and stunted growth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore whether socioeconomic and sanitary conditions, maternal and child factors are associated with overweight, stunting, and wasting in children under five year old in the city of Sao Leopoldo, southern Brazil. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 3,957 children aged 1 month to 5 years conducted in all primary care services of the city during the National Children's Vaccination Day in 2002. Maternal and child factors were assessed by a questionnaire. Children's height and weight were measured. Cluster analysis was used to group the areas served by the primary care services according to socioeconomic and sanitary conditions of the census tracts assessed by the 2001 National Census. Results: Wasting was observed in 2.6% of children, stunting in 9.1% and overweight in 9.8%. The multivariable logistic regression model suggests that overweight was associated with higher socioeconomic status and better sanitation of the area (OR = 1.47; 95%CI 1.09-1.96), single child (OR = 1.44; 95%CI 1.00-2.07) and birth weight >= 2,500 g (OR = 2.21; 95%CI 1.27-3.83). Wasting was associated with low birth weight (OR = 3.46; 95%CI 2.06-5.80) and mother's age < 20 years (OR = 1.99; 95%CI 1.09-3.62). Stunting was associated with low socioeconomic status and poor sanitation of the area (OR = 2.36; 95%CI 1.51-3.69), three or more siblings (OR = 3.12; 95%CI 2.18-4.47), low birth weight < 2,500 g (OR = 3.49; 95%CI 2.53-4.80), child age < 36 months (OR = 1.77; 95%CI 1.37-2.29) and mother's age < 20 years (OR = 1.60; 95%CI 1.09-2.35). Conclusions: Overweight and stunting were the major anthropometric problems and therefore should be a priority for public policies.

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