| Literature DB >> 19635158 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight increased among Filipino mothers and offspring from 1994 to 2005 however, a higher rate of increase among mothers resulted in a prevalence 4 times higher than that among offspring in 2005. Our aim was to explore the differential effects of changing income, assets, maternal education, and urbanicity on dietary behaviors of mothers and offspring that may affect overweight risk.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19635158 PMCID: PMC2734565 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Individual, household and community characteristics (Mean ± SD) of mother-offspring pairs from 1994 to 2005 in Cebu, Philippinesa
| Year | ||||
| No. of households | 1,884 | 1,781 | 1,615 | 1,311 |
| Energy adequacy, (Kcal/BEE)a | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| Percent calories from CHOa, (%) | 69.0 | 68.2 | 67.8 | 68.1 |
| Percent calories from fat, (%) | 15.8 | 17.1 | 16.0 | 15.7 |
| Energy adequacy, (Kcal/BEE) | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| Percent calories from CHO, (%) | 68.4 | 64.0 | 56.0 | 55.6 |
| Percent calories from fat, (%) | 17.2 | 22.1 | 26.6 | 25.8 |
| Energy adequacy, (Kcal/BEE) | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percent calories from CHO, (%) | 68.4 | 64.3 | 60.5 | 60.0 |
| Percent calories from fat, (%) | 16.9 | 21.8 | 22.2 | 21.6 |
| Age, (years) | 38.7 ± 6.1 | 42.7 ± 6.1 | 45.9 ± 6.0 | 48.6 ± 5.9 |
| Education, (years) | 7.5 ± 3.9 | 7.6 ± 3.9 | 7.6 ± 3.9 | 7.7 ± 3.9 |
| Gender of Offspring (% male) | 51.6 | 53.0 | 55.7 | 56.5 |
| 912 | 837 | 720 | 571 | |
| Age, (years) | 11.5 ± 0.4 | 14.9 ± 0.4 | 18.7 ± 0.3 | 21.5 ± 0.3 |
| Education, (years) | 3.7 ± 1.0 | 7.8 ± 1.5 | 10.8 ± 2.0 | 12.1 ± 3.1 |
| 968 | 944 | 895 | 740 | |
| Age, (years) | 11.5 ± 0.4 | 16.1 ± 0.3 | 18.7 ± 0.3 | 21.5 ± 0.3 |
| Education, (years) | 3.4 ± 1.2 | 7.8 ± 1.5 | 9.5 ± 2.9 | 10.7 ± 3.9 |
| Household income (pesos/wk) | 501.0 ± 407.8 | 543.3 ± 407.4 | 578.1 ± 468.8 | 601.4 ± 555.0 |
| Household assets, (score,1 to 11) | 4.0 ± 2.2 | 4.8 ± 2.2 | 5.3 ± 2.0 | 5.5 ± 1.9 |
| Urbanicity (score, 1 to 70) | 35.7 ± 13.3 | 39.0 ± 13.7 | 41.9 ± 13.8 | 41.0 ± 13.4 |
aNotes: SD = Standard Deviation, Kcal = kilocalories, BEE = Basal Energy Expenditure, CHO = Carbohydrate
Longitudinal random-effects regression predicting change in total dietary calories/Basal Energy Expenditure (BEE) for Filipino mothers versus offspringa
| Mother and Daughter | Mother and Son | |
| Mother | ||
| Offspring | -0.22 (-0.31,-0.13)*** c | -0.13 (-0.26,0.004)† |
| Maternal education: | ||
| Less than primary school graduate | ||
| Primary school graduate | 0.07 (0.01,0.12)* | 0.11 (0.05,0.17)*** |
| Some high school | 0.12 (0.06,0.18)*** | 0.14 (0.08,0.20)*** |
| High school graduate or higher | 0.22 (0.15,0.30)*** | 0.22 (0.15,0.30)*** |
| Household income, (per 100 pesos) | 0.006 (-0.001,0.013) | 0.008 (0.003,0.01)*** |
| Household assets, (score,1 to 11) | 0.01 (-0.004,0.02) | 0.01 (-0.001,0.03)† |
| Urbanicity, (score, 1 to 70) | 0.006 (0.004,0.008)*** | 0.006 (0.003,0.008)*** |
| Time: | ||
| 1994 | ||
| 1998 | -0.001 (-0.10,0.09) | 0.27 (0.13,0.40)*** |
| 2002 | 0.04 (-0.07,0.15) | 0.04 (-0.10,0.19) |
| 2005 | -0.20 (-0.33,-0.07)** | 0.01 (-0.14,0.17) |
| Offspring*Primary school graduate | -0.04 (-0.11,0.03) | -0.06 (-0.14,0.02) |
| Offspring*Some high school | 0.01 (-0.06,0.08) | -0.004 (-0.08,0.07) |
| Offspring*High school graduate or higher | -0.03 (-0.12,0.06) | -0.03 (-0.12,0.07) |
| Offspring*Household income | -0.004 (-0.01,0.002) | -0.002 (-0.008,0.004) |
| Offspring* Household assets | 0.03 (0.01,0.04)*** | 0.01 (-0.001,0.03)† |
| Offspring*Urbanicity | 0.003 (0.001,0.005)* | 0.005 (0.001,0.008)** |
| Offspring*1998 | 0.05 (-0.006,0.10)† | 0.16 (-0.02,0.34)† |
| Offspring*2002 | 0.24 (0.18,0.30)*** | 0.49 (0.31,0.68)*** |
| Offspring*2005 | 0.39 (0.33,0.46)*** | 0.92 (0.73,1.12)*** |
| Household income*1998 | 0.008 (-0.01,0.02)† | --------------- |
| Household income*2002 | -0.003 (-0.01,0.01) | --------------- |
| Household income*2005 | -0.005 (-0.01,0.004) | --------------- |
| Household assets*1998 | -0.006 (-0.02,0.01) | -0.002 (-0.02,0.01) |
| Household assets*2002 | -0.008 (-0.02,0.01) | -0.003 (-0.02,0.01) |
| Household assets*2005 | 0.02 (0.01,0.05)* | -0.02 (-0.04,-0.01)** |
| Urbanicity*1998 | -0.003 (-0.005,-0.001)* | -0.005 (-0.01,-0.002)** |
| Urbanicity*2002 | -0.002 (-0.005,-0.001)* | -0.002 (-0.005,0.001) |
| Urbanicity*2005 | -0.002 (-0.005,0.000)† | -0.001 (-0.005,0.002) |
| Offspring*Urbanicity*1998 | --------------- | -0.002 (-0.006,0.002) |
| Offspring*Urbanicity*2002 | --------------- | -0.005 (-0.009–0.001)* |
| Offspring*Urbanicity*2005 | --------------- | -0.009 (-0.01,-0.004)*** |
aAll models are adjusted for maternal age
bNotes: Ref = referent category
c†P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.0001
Longitudinal random-effects regression predicting percent of dietary calories from fat for Filipino mothers versus offspringa
| Mother and Daughter | Mother and Son | |
| Mother | ||
| Offspring | 3.40 (1.01,5.79)** c | 0.75 (-1.10,2.59) |
| Maternal education: | ||
| Less than primary school graduate | ||
| Primary school graduate | 1.46 (0.25,2.67)* | 2.04 (0.84,3.25)** |
| Some high school | 3.77 (2.53,5.01)*** | 3.32 (2.15,4.49)*** |
| High school graduate or higher | 6.22 (4.62,7.83)*** | 6.95 (4.52,8.47)*** |
| Household income, (per 100 pesos) | 0.29 (0.12,0.46)** | 0.17 (0.08,0.26)*** |
| Household assets, (score,1 to 11) | 1.10 (0.72,1.049)*** | 0.74 (0.51,0.97)*** |
| Urbanicity, (score, 1 to 70) | 0.08 (0.05,0.12)*** | 0.14 (0.09,0.18)*** |
| Time: | ||
| 1994 | ||
| 1998 | 0.34 (-1.86,2.54) | 4.88 (2.80,6.94)*** |
| 2002 | 0.72 (-1.98,3.41) | 2.69 (0.48,4.90)* |
| 2005 | 1.60 (-1.73,4.92) | 0.23 (-2.15,2.61) |
| Offspring*Primary school graduate | -0.40 (-1.87,1.06) | -1.13 (-2.60,0.33) |
| Offspring*Some high school | -0.86 (-2.35,0.64) | -1.33 (-2.75,0.08)† |
| Offspring*High school graduate or higher | -1.23 (-3.18,0.72) | -2.63 (-4.51,-0.75)** |
| Offspring*Household income | -0.19 (-0.34,-0.05)** | -0.08 (-0.21,0.04) |
| Offspring*Household assets | -0.31 (-0.80,0.17) | 0.17 (-0.14,0.47) |
| Offspring*Urbanicity | 0.02 (-0.02,0.06) | 0.03 (-0.02,0.07) |
| Offspring*1998 | 1.76 (-1.30,4.82) | 2.50 (1.17,3.84)*** |
| Offspring*2002 | 6.40 (2.73,10.08)** | 4.90 (3.51,6.30)*** |
| Offspring*2005 | 2.92 (-1.56,7.39) | 5.37 (3.63,6.57)*** |
| Household income*1998 | 0.17 (-0.04,0.39) | --------------- |
| Household income*2002 | 0.01 (-0.20,0.22) | --------------- |
| Household income*2005 | -0.17 (-0.38,0.03)† | --------------- |
| Household assets*1998 | -0.48 (-0.99,0.03)† | --------------- |
| Household assets*2002 | -0.50 (-1.04,0.05)† | --------------- |
| Household assets*2005 | -0.41 (-1.03,0.22) | --------------- |
| Urbanicity*1998 | --------------- | -0.08 (-0.13,-0.04)** |
| Urbanicity*2002 | --------------- | -0.09 (-0.14,-0.04)** |
| Urbanicity*2005 | --------------- | -0.05 (-0.10,0.01)† |
| Offspring*Household assets*1998 | 0.81 (0.17,1.45)* | --------------- |
| Offspring*Household assets*2002 | 0.57 (-0.13,1.27) | --------------- |
| Offspring*Household assets*2005 | 0.98 (0.16,1.79)* | --------------- |
aAll models are adjusted for maternal age
bNotes: Ref = referent category
c†P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.0001
Longitudinal random-effects regression predicting dietary calories from carbohydrates for Filipino mothers versus offspringa
| Mother and Daughter | Mother and Son | |
| Mother | ||
| Offspring | -2.65 (-4.70,0.61)* c | -2.24 (-3.57,-0.91)** |
| Maternal education: | ||
| Less than primary school graduate | ||
| Primary school graduate | -1.23 (-2.53,0.07)† | -1.87 (-3.16,-0.59)** |
| Some high school | -3.71 (-5.04,-2.38)*** | -3.06 (-4.32,-1.81)*** |
| High school graduate or higher | -6.28 (-8.00,-4.56)*** | -7.16 (-8.78,-5.53)*** |
| Household income, (per 100 pesos) | -0.29 (-0.46,-0.13)*** | -0.22 (-0.32,-0.12)*** |
| Household assets, (score,1 to 11) | -0.96 (-1.23,-0.70)*** | -0.93 (-1.18,-0.68)*** |
| Urbanicity, (score, 1 to 70) | -0.09 (-0.12,-0.05)*** | -0.10 (-0.15,-0.05)*** |
| Time: | ||
| 1994 | ||
| 1998 | 2.36 (-0.90,3.83)** | -2.36 (-5.18,-0.81)** |
| 2002 | 1.17 (-0.47,2.80) | -1.87 (-4.20,0.45) |
| 2005 | -0.01 (-1.80,1.77) | 1.14 (-1.36,3.64) |
| Offspring*Primary school graduate | 0.25 (-1.32,1.81) | 1.06 (-0.53,2.64) |
| Offspring*Some high school | 1.37 (0.22,2.97)† | 1.56 (0.03,2.97)* |
| Offspring*High school graduate+ | 1.62 (-0.47,3.71) | 2.77 (0.74,4.71)** |
| Offspring*Household income | 0.23 (0.08,0.38)** | 0.12 (-0.01,0.25)† |
| Offspring*Household assets | -0.01 (-0.35,0.32) | -0.03 (-0.36,0.29) |
| Offspring*Urbanicity | -0.01 (-0.06,0.03) | -0.01 (-0.06,0.03) |
| Offspring*1998 | -4.98 (-6.46,-3.51)*** | -2.38 (-3.78,-0.97)** |
| Offspring*2002 | -11.07 (-12.66,-9.48)*** | -6.68 (-8.15,-5.22)*** |
| Offspring*2005 | -10.95 (-12.66,-9.25)*** | -8.10 (-9.64,-6.56)*** |
| Household income*1998 | -0.23 (-0.42,-0.04)* | --------------- |
| Household income*2002 | -0.09 (-0.28,0.10) | --------------- |
| Household income*2005 | 0.07 (-0.12,0.26) | --------------- |
| Urbanicity*1998 | --------------- | 0.05 (-0.002,0.10)† |
| Urbanicity*2002 | --------------- | 0.04 (-0.01,0.09) |
| Urbanicity*2005 | --------------- | -0.01 (-0.07,0.04) |
aAll models are adjusted for maternal age
bRef = referent category
c†P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.0001
Figure 1Predicted prevalence of (a) total calories as a proportion of basal energy expenditure for mothers versus daughters in both a high and Low SES-urbanicity environment, (b) total calories as a proportion of basal energy expenditure for mothers versus sons in both a high and Low SES-urbanicity environment, (c) proportion of total calories from fat for mothers versus daughters in both a high and Low SES- urbanicity environment, (d) proportion of total calories from fat for mothers versus sons in both a high and Low SES-urbanicity environment, (e) proportion of total calories from carbohydrates for mothers versus daughters in both a high and Low SES- urbanicity environment, (f) proportion of total calories from carbohydrates for mothers versus sons in both a high and Low SES-urbanicity environment. As noted in the text, a high SES-urbanicity environment is represented jointly by the 90th percentile of income, assets and urbanicity and maternal education level = high school graduate or higher, and low SES-urbanicity is represented jointly by the 10th percentile of income, assets and urbanicity and maternal education level = primary school graduate.