4.7 Editorial Material

Do birth cohorts matter? Age-period-cohort analyses of the obesity epidemic in the United States

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 69, 期 10, 页码 1439-1448

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.040

关键词

USA; Obesity; Obesity epidemic; Body mass index (BMI); Health disparities; Birth cohorts; Period effects; Gender; Ethnicity

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [T32 AG000129, T32 AG000129-16, T32-AG000129] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R24 HD050924] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many studies have cited the importance of secular changes or period effects as causes of the U.S. obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, relatively little attention has been devoted to the possible influence of cohort-related mechanisms. To address this current gap in the scientific literature, this investigation utilized the responses from 1.7 million participants in the 1976-2002 National Health Interview Surveys to determine how birth cohorts may have contributed to the rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity. Results from hierarchical age-period-cohort (HAPC) models confirmed that period effects are principally responsible for the U.S. obesity epidemic. However, HAPC models also demonstrated that birth cohort membership is influential. Independent of age and period effects, the predicted probability of obesity at age 25 increased by 30% for cohorts born between 1955 and 1975. Our results also showed that age, period and cohort effects varied by race/gender and educational attainment. For instance, increases in the predicted probabilities of obesity were particularly sharp for recent cohorts of Black females. Our investigation successfully demonstrated that both secular change and birth cohort membership have independently contributed to elevated odds of obesity among recent generations of Americans. suggesting that cohort-specific strategies may be needed to combat disconcertingly high rates of obesity in the U.S. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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