4.1 Article

Does Pet-Keeping Modify the Association of Delivery Mode with Offspring Body Size?

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 1426-1433

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-014-1649-y

关键词

Birth cohort; Childhood obesity; Delivery mode; Companion animals

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI050681, R01 HL113010, P01 AI089473]
  2. Fund for Henry Ford Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Caesarean-section (CS) delivery increases risk of childhood obesity, and is associated with a distinct early-life gut microbiome, which may contribute to obesity. Household pets may alter human gut microbiome composition. We examined if pet-keeping modified the association of CS with obesity at age 2 years in 639 Wayne County Health, Environment, Allergy and Asthma Longitudinal Study birth cohort participants. Pet-keeping was defined as having a dog or cat (indoors a parts per thousand yen1 h/day) at child age 2 years. We used logistic regression to test for an interaction between CS and pet-keeping with obesity (BMI a parts per thousand yen 95th percentile) at age 2 years, adjusted for maternal obesity. A total of 328 (51.3 %) children were male; 367 (57.4 %) were African American; 228 (35.7 %) were born by CS; and 55 (8.6 %) were obese. After adjusting for maternal obesity, CS-born children had a non-significant (P = 0.25) but elevated 1.4 (95 % CI 0.8, 2.5) higher odds of obesity compared to those born vaginally. There was evidence of effect modification between current pet-keeping and delivery mode with obesity at age 2 years (interaction P = 0.054). Compared to children born vaginally without a pet currently in the home, children born via CS without a pet currently in the home had a statistically significant (P = 0.043) higher odds (odds ratio 2.00; 95 % CI 1.02, 3.93) of being obese at age 2 years. Pets modified the CS-BMI relationship; whether the underlying mechanism is through effects on environmental or gut microbiome requires specific investigation.

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

4.1
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