4.6 Article

One Size Does Not Fit All: Identifying Risk Profiles for Overweight in Adolescent Population Subsets

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 517-524

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.010

关键词

Adolescent obesity

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [P50 DA010075-13, P50 DA010075-14, P50 DA010075] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify population subgroups of adolescents who are homogenous with respect to sociodemographic factors and potentially modifiable risk and protective factors related to overweight status in a nationally representative sample of adolescents ages 12-17. Methods: The data used for this study are froth the Centers for Disease Control and National Center for Health Statistics' National Survey of Children's Health, 2003 (NSCH). Classification and Regression Trees (CART) were used to identify population segments of adolescents based on risk and protective factors for obesity. Results: In the final CART model, 12 variables remained, including: poverty level, race, gender, participation in sports, number of family meals, family educational attainment, child physical activity, participation in free lunch programs, neighborhood safety and connectedness, TV viewing time, and child age in years. Poverty level was determined to be the most variable related to weight status in this sample of adolescents. Adolescents living in households below approximately the 300% poverty level were subject to a different constellation of predictors than adolescents living in homes above the 300% poverty level. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate how risk and protective factors related to obesity emerge differently among sociodemographic subgroups and the relative importance of these risk and protective factors in relation to adolescent overweight status. Interventions that work for one population subgroup may not work for another. (C) 2009 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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