4.3 Article

Growth status among low-income Mexican and Mexican-American elementary school children

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 690-695

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22298

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Childhood obesity remains a problem among Latino children in the United States. Acculturation to an American diet and sedentary lifestyle may be causative factors. The research purpose was to assess child growth status, including sitting height, in relation to acculturation among Mexican and Mexican-American children. Methods: Anthropometric measures of weight, height, and sitting height were taken in a cross-sectional survey of Mexican and Mexican-American elementary school children (N = 484) in Phoenix, Arizona. Height-for-age (HAZ), weight-for-age (WAZ), and body mass index (BMI) Z-scores were calculated based on the Centers for Disease Control 2000 growth reference. Sitting height Z-scores (SHZ) were determined from the NHANES III reference values. Questions about language usage were asked of the children as a proxy for acculturation. Differences in growth measures and acculturation between those born in the United States or Mexico were evaluated by chi-square or t-tests. Results: The mean HAZ value (-0.23) was close to the reference median. There were no significant differences in HAZ or SHZ by birth country or gender. WAZ values for boys were significantly higher than for girls. More girls (64%) than boys (54%) had normal BMIs. More Mexican-born boys (28%) were obese than Mexican-born girls (17%; P = 0.026) in comparison to the US-born boys (31%) and girls (24%; P = n.s.). Acculturation scale score and male gender predicted a small percentage of the variation in BMIZ. Conclusions: Environmental and cultural factors that promote obesity among low-income Mexican and Mexican-American children are similar regardless of birth country but boys may be at greater risk of obesity than girls. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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