4.3 Article

Decomposing adult obesity trends in China (1991-2011)

期刊

ECONOMICS & HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 5-15

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.02.001

关键词

Obesity; Decomposition; China

资金

  1. National Institute for Nutrition and Health, China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Carolina Population Center [P2C HD050924, T32 HD007168]
  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  3. NIH [R01-HD30880, DK056350, R24 HD050924, R01-HD38700]
  4. NIH Fogarty International Center [D43 TW009077, D43 TW007709]
  5. China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey, this study analyses two decades (1991-2011) of change in adult obesity in China with a focus on whether rising obesity rates result from all population cohorts becoming more obese across time (intra-cohort change) or recent cohorts being more obese than their earlier counterparts (inter-cohort change or cohort replacement). To do so, we decompose changes in the body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), general obesity and abdominal obesity of adults aged 20+ using both Firebaugh's linear decomposition and Das Gupta's non-linear technique. Our analysis not only reveals significant increases in both general and abdominal obesity (8.1 and 32 percentage points, respectively) in the two decades studied but shows that the rising means in all four measures are mostly attributable to intra-cohort change. In fact, contrary to findings for the U.S., intercohort change for the Chinese sample is actually negative, implying that cohort replacement attenuates intra-cohort change over time. Given that intra-cohort change is the central force for the increase in BMI, WC and obesity with individual increases in obesity widely distributed across all cohorts and age groups over time, policy interventions should focus more broadly on all age groups and birth cohorts. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
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