4.6 Article

The sociodemographic correlates of nutritional status of school adolescents in Jiangsu Province, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 313-322

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.013

关键词

adolescents; nutritional status; China; socioeconomic status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The objective of this article was to describe the relationship between sociodemographic factors and nutritional status (body mass index [BMI], height for age, and anemia) in adolescents. Methods: In 2002, a cross-sectional study comprising 824 students aged 12 to 14 years from 8 schools in 2 prefectures in Jiangsu province of China had their height, weight, and hemoglobin level measured. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect sociodemographic information. Results: The prevalence of underweight was low in the overall sample (5.2%). The prevalence of stunting also was low (2.9%), and the differences between residential areas and sociodemographic groups were small. The percentage of overweight/obesity was higher among boys (17.9%) than girls (8.9%). Male students having fathers with a high educational level had the highest percentage of overweight and obesity (27.8%). Household socioeconomic status (SES) was associated positively with BMI. Family size, gender, and the father's level of education also were related to BMI. The percentage of anemia was somewhat higher among girls (23.4%) than boys (17.2%). Anemia coexisted with underweight. No urban/rural or SES differences in the percentage of students with anemia were observed in the sample, but differences between regions and schools were very significant. Conclusions: Undernutrition was not a problem in the research area. Nutritional status was associated with SES and region. Overnutrition and anemia in adolescents are important nutritional problems in Jiangsu, China. Intervention programs are needed to address these problems. (c) 2005 Society for Adolescent Medicine. 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

4.6
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