4.6 Article

The stability of weight status through the early to middle childhood years in Australia: a longitudinal study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006963

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council/Australian National Heart Foundation [APP1045836]
  2. US National Institutes of Health [1R01HL115485-01A1]
  3. National Heart Foundation of Australia
  4. Deakin University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the sociodemographic and behavioural factors associated with incidence, persistence or remission of obesity in a longitudinal sample of Australian children aged 4-10 years. Setting: Nationally representative Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). Participants: The sample for this analysis included all children in the Kinder cohort (aged 4-5 years at wave 1) who participated in all four waves of LSAC (wave 1, 2004, aged 4-5 years; wave 2, 2006, aged 6-7 years; wave 3, 2008, aged 8-9 years and wave 4, 2010, aged 10-11 years). Of the 4983 children who participated in the baseline (wave 1) survey, 4169 (83.7%) children completed all four waves of data collection. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Movement of children between weight status categories over time and individual-level predictors of weight status change (sociodemographic characteristics, selected dietary and activity behaviours). Results: The study found tracking of weight status across this period of childhood. There was an inverse association observed between socioeconomic position and persistence of overweight/obesity. Sugars-weetened beverages and fruit and vegetable intake and screen time appeared to be important predictors of stronger tracking. Conclusions: Overweight and obesity established early in childhood tracks strongly to the middle childhood years in Australia, particularly among children of lower socioeconomic position and children participating in some unhealthy behaviour patterns.

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