BMI自我选择:探索自我报告BMI的替代方案

F. Shiely, S. Millar
{"title":"BMI自我选择:探索自我报告BMI的替代方案","authors":"F. Shiely, S. Millar","doi":"10.1177/26320843211010061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Accurately measuring BMI in large epidemiological studies is problematic as objective measurements are expensive, so subjective methodologies must usually suffice. The purpose of this study is to explore a new subjective method of BMI measurement: BMI self-selection. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of the Mitchelstown Cohort Rescreen study, a random sample of 1,354 men and women aged 51–77 years recruited from a single primary care centre. BMI self-selection was measured by asking patients to select their BMI category: underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese. Weight and height were also objectively measured. Results 79% were overweight or obese: 86% of males, 69% of females (P < 0.001) and 59% of these underestimated their BMI. The sensitivity for correct BMI self-selection for normal weight, overweight and obese was 77%, 61% and 11% respectively. In multivariable analysis, gender, higher education levels, being told by a health professional to lose weight, and being on a diet were significantly associated with correct BMI self-selection. There was a linear trend relationship between increasing BMI levels and correct selection of BMI; participants in the highest BMI quartile had an approximate eight-fold increased odds of correctly selecting their BMI when compared to participants within the lower overweight/obese quartiles (OR = 7.72, 95%CI:4.59, 12.98). Conclusions BMI self-selection may be useful for self-reporting BMI. Clinicians need to be aware of disparities between BMI self-selection at higher and lower BMI levels among overweight/obese patients and encourage preventative action for those at the lower levels to avoid weight gain and thus reduce their all-cause mortality risk.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"112 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/26320843211010061","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BMI self-selection: Exploring alternatives to self-reported BMI\",\"authors\":\"F. Shiely, S. Millar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26320843211010061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Accurately measuring BMI in large epidemiological studies is problematic as objective measurements are expensive, so subjective methodologies must usually suffice. The purpose of this study is to explore a new subjective method of BMI measurement: BMI self-selection. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of the Mitchelstown Cohort Rescreen study, a random sample of 1,354 men and women aged 51–77 years recruited from a single primary care centre. BMI self-selection was measured by asking patients to select their BMI category: underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese. Weight and height were also objectively measured. Results 79% were overweight or obese: 86% of males, 69% of females (P < 0.001) and 59% of these underestimated their BMI. The sensitivity for correct BMI self-selection for normal weight, overweight and obese was 77%, 61% and 11% respectively. In multivariable analysis, gender, higher education levels, being told by a health professional to lose weight, and being on a diet were significantly associated with correct BMI self-selection. There was a linear trend relationship between increasing BMI levels and correct selection of BMI; participants in the highest BMI quartile had an approximate eight-fold increased odds of correctly selecting their BMI when compared to participants within the lower overweight/obese quartiles (OR = 7.72, 95%CI:4.59, 12.98). Conclusions BMI self-selection may be useful for self-reporting BMI. Clinicians need to be aware of disparities between BMI self-selection at higher and lower BMI levels among overweight/obese patients and encourage preventative action for those at the lower levels to avoid weight gain and thus reduce their all-cause mortality risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research methods in medicine & health sciences\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"112 - 122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/26320843211010061\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research methods in medicine & health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843211010061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843211010061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:在大型流行病学研究中准确测量BMI是有问题的,因为客观测量是昂贵的,所以主观方法通常必须足够。本研究的目的是探索一种新的主观BMI测量方法:BMI自我选择。方法对Mitchelstown队列再筛选研究进行横断面分析,该研究随机从单个初级保健中心招募了1354名年龄在51-77岁的男性和女性。BMI自我选择是通过要求患者选择他们的BMI类别来测量的:体重不足,正常体重,超重,肥胖。同时客观测量体重和身高。结果79%的人超重或肥胖:86%的男性,69%的女性(P < 0.001),其中59%的人低估了他们的BMI。正常体重、超重和肥胖对BMI自我选择的敏感度分别为77%、61%和11%。在多变量分析中,性别、高等教育水平、被健康专业人员告知减肥以及节食与正确的BMI自我选择显著相关。BMI水平的升高与BMI的正确选择呈线性关系;BMI指数最高四分位数的参与者与体重指数较低/肥胖四分位数的参与者相比,正确选择BMI的几率大约增加了8倍(OR = 7.72, 95%CI:4.59, 12.98)。结论BMI自我选择可能有助于自我报告BMI。临床医生需要意识到超重/肥胖患者在BMI水平较高和较低时自我选择的差异,并鼓励那些BMI水平较低的患者采取预防措施,以避免体重增加,从而降低他们的全因死亡风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
BMI self-selection: Exploring alternatives to self-reported BMI
Background Accurately measuring BMI in large epidemiological studies is problematic as objective measurements are expensive, so subjective methodologies must usually suffice. The purpose of this study is to explore a new subjective method of BMI measurement: BMI self-selection. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of the Mitchelstown Cohort Rescreen study, a random sample of 1,354 men and women aged 51–77 years recruited from a single primary care centre. BMI self-selection was measured by asking patients to select their BMI category: underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese. Weight and height were also objectively measured. Results 79% were overweight or obese: 86% of males, 69% of females (P < 0.001) and 59% of these underestimated their BMI. The sensitivity for correct BMI self-selection for normal weight, overweight and obese was 77%, 61% and 11% respectively. In multivariable analysis, gender, higher education levels, being told by a health professional to lose weight, and being on a diet were significantly associated with correct BMI self-selection. There was a linear trend relationship between increasing BMI levels and correct selection of BMI; participants in the highest BMI quartile had an approximate eight-fold increased odds of correctly selecting their BMI when compared to participants within the lower overweight/obese quartiles (OR = 7.72, 95%CI:4.59, 12.98). Conclusions BMI self-selection may be useful for self-reporting BMI. Clinicians need to be aware of disparities between BMI self-selection at higher and lower BMI levels among overweight/obese patients and encourage preventative action for those at the lower levels to avoid weight gain and thus reduce their all-cause mortality risk.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信