4.5 Article

Trends in childhood body mass index between 1936 and 2011 showed that underweight remained more common than obesity among 398?970 Danish school children

期刊

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.16980

关键词

child; obesity; overweight; prevalence; thinness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among Danish schoolchildren, the prevalence of underweight remained stable until the 1950s to 1970s, and then declined until the early 2000s. The prevalence of overweight plateaued until the 1950s to 1970s and then increased steeply. The prevalence of obesity particularly increased from the 1980s onwards. These trends slightly differed by age.
AimTo examine trends in all body mass index (BMI) groups in children from 1936 to 2011.MethodsWe included 197 694 girls and 201 276 boys from the Copenhagen School Health Records Register, born between 1930 and 1996, with longitudinal weight and height measurements (6-14 years). Using International Obesity Task Force criteria, BMI was classified as underweight, normal-weight, overweight and obesity. Sex- and age-specific prevalences were calculated.ResultsFrom the 1930s, the prevalence of underweight was stable until a small increase occurred from 1950 to 1970s, and thereafter it declined into the early 2000s. Using 7-year-olds as an example, underweight changed from 10% to 7% in girls and from 9% to 6% in boys during the study period. The prevalence of overweight plateaued from 1950 to 1970s and then steeply increased from 1970s onwards and in 1990-2000s 15% girls and 11% boys at 7 years had overweight. The prevalence of obesity particularly increased from 1980s onwards and in 1990-2000s 5% girls and 4% boys at 7 years had obesity. These trends slightly differed by age.ConclusionAmong Danish schoolchildren, the prevalence of underweight was greater than overweight until the 1980s and greater than obesity throughout the period. Thus, monitoring the prevalence of childhood underweight remains an important public health issue.

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

4.5
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