| Literature DB >> 19642972 |
Wing-Sze Lo1, Sai-Yin Ho, Kwok-Kei Mak, Yuen-Kwan Lai, Tai-Hing Lam.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight comments are commonly received by adolescents, but the accuracy of the comments and their effects on weight misperception are unclear. We assessed the prevalence and accuracy of weight comments received by Chinese adolescents from different sources and their relation to weight misperception.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19642972 PMCID: PMC2731749 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Basic characteristics of participants (N = 22612)
| Characteristics | All (N = 22612) | Boys (N = 9375) | Girls (N = 13237) | Test statistics |
| Age (years, mean, SD) | 14.7 (1.70) | 14.6 (1.70) | 14.7 (1.70) | t = -3.35, p = 0.019 |
| Form (%) | χ2 = 27.52, p < 0.001 | |||
| Junior (F1–F3)a | 59.6 | 61.7 | 58.2 | |
| Senior (F4–F7)a | 40.4 | 38.3 | 41.8 | |
| BMI (kg/m2, mean, SD) | 19.2 (2.99) | 19.5 (3.29) | 18.9 (2.73) | t = 13.29, p < 0.001 |
| Weight status by local references (%) | χ2 = 204.15, p < 0.001 | |||
| Underweight | 8.7 | 8.6 | 8.7 | |
| Normal weight | 79.0 | 75.3 | 81.6 | |
| Overweight/Obese | 12.4 | 16.1 | 9.7 | |
| Parental education level (%) | χ2 = 26.07, p < 0.001 | |||
| Primary or below | 12.0 | 12.2 | 11.9 | |
| Secondary | 65.9 | 64.1 | 67.2 | |
| Tertiary or above | 22.1 | 23.7 | 21.0 | |
| Place of birth (%) | χ2 = 3.63, p = 0.06 | |||
| Hong Kong | 73.9 | 73.6 | 74.6 | |
| Other placesb | 26.1 | 26.4 | 25.4 | |
| Family affluence (%) | χ2 = 38.03, p < 0.001 | |||
| Relatively poor | 36.4 | 38.6 | 34.9 | |
| Medium | 52.6 | 50.3 | 54.3 | |
| Relatively wealthy | 10.9 | 11.1 | 10.8 | |
| Weight perception (%) | χ2 = 177.35, p < 0.001 | |||
| Correct perception | 47.6 | 52.9 | 43.9 | |
| Weight misperception | 52.4 | 47.1 | 56.1 | |
| Received weight comments of being "too fat" | 29.0 | 22.3 | 33.8 | χ2 = 350.00, p < 0.001 |
| Received weight comments of being "too thin" | 26.9 | 28.4 | 25.8 | χ2 = 17.71, p < 0.001 |
a F1–F3 is equivalent to grade 7 to grade 9; F4–F7 is equivalent to grade 10 to grade 12.
b Other places: Mainland China (majority), Macau, Western countries and others.
Sources of weight comments received by boys and girls
| Boys | Girls | χ2 | p | Boys | Girls | χ2 | P | Boys | Girls | |
| Family | 14.4 | 26.1 | 446.21 | < 0.001 | 22.2 | 18.9 | 37.35 | < 0.001 | 0.65 | 1.38 |
| Father | 5.3 | 7.7 | 50.98 | < 0.001 | 8.7 | 7.1 | 20.86 | < 0.001 | 0.61 | 1.08 |
| Mother | 9.0 | 17.0 | 299.75 | < 0.001 | 15.1 | 12.4 | 36.43 | < 0.001 | 0.60 | 1.37 |
| Siblings | 4.1 | 10.6 | 312.18 | < 0.001 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 20.41 | < 0.001 | 1.05 | 3.79 |
| Grandfather | 1.0 | 0.7 | 5.09 | 0.024 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 18.53 | < 0.001 | 0.50 | 0.54 |
| Grandmother | 0.6 | 1.5 | 41.33 | < 0.001 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.24 | 0.56 |
| Other relatives | 1.2 | 4.4 | 185.95 | < 0.001 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 6.88 | 0.009 | 0.33 | 1.00 |
| Peers | 7.5 | 13.5 | 204.17 | < 0.001 | 6.5 | 11.4 | 153.34 | < 0.001 | 1.15 | 1.18 |
| Classmates | 5.2 | 8.4 | 89.30 | < 0.001 | 4.7 | 7.8 | 84.15 | < 0.001 | 1.11 | 1.08 |
| Friends | 4.2 | 8.9 | 189.96 | < 0.001 | 4.2 | 7.7 | 112.95 | < 0.001 | 1.00 | 1.16 |
| Professionals | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.62 | 0.50 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 0.007 | 0.97 | 0.75 | 0.79 |
| Teachers | 0.8 | 1.0 | 3.37 | 0.07 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.24 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.71 |
| Social workers | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.09 | 0.77 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.75 | 0.39 | 0.80 | 0.67 |
| Health professionals | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.19 | 0.89 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.03 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| Othersa | 5.5 | 4.7 | 5.17 | 0.012 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 42.99 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | 1.04 |
a Others include neighbors and domestic helpers.
Figure 1Prevalence of correct weight comments of being "too fat" by source and sex (descending order). Key: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 between boys and girls.
Figure 2Prevalence of correct weight comments of being "too thin" by source and sex (descending order). Key: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 between boys and girls.
The types of weight comments by weight perception in boys and girls of different weight statusa
| Boys (n = 9375) | Girls (n = 13237) | |||||||
| Correct perception (n = 4958) | Weight misperception (n = 4417) | χ2 | p | Correct perception (n = 5812) | Weight misperception (n = 7425) | χ2 | p | |
| UN | (n = 496) | (n = 311) | 135.45 | < 0.001 | (n = 612) | (n = 539) | 246.93 | < 0.001 |
| No comments | 38.5 | 67.5 | 26.6 | 51.6 | ||||
| Correct | 54.6 | 15.1 | 65.7 | 22.3 | ||||
| Incorrect | 0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 15.0 | ||||
| Conflicting | 6.9 | 13.8 | 6.7 | 11.1 | ||||
| NW | (n = 3353) | (n = 3710) | 545.23 | < 0.001 | (n = 4082) | (n = 6715) | 600.24 | < 0.001 |
| No comments | 75.7 | 50.3 | 65.5 | 41.6 | ||||
| Correct | - | - | - | - | ||||
| Incorrect | 16.2 | 40.6 | 27.8 | 50.3 | ||||
| Conflicting | 8.1 | 9.1 | 6.7 | 8.0 | ||||
| OV/OB | (n = 1109) | (n = 396) | 261.11 | < 0.001 | (n = 1118) | (n = 171) | 228.84 | < 0.001 |
| No comments | 37.9 | 62.1 | 30.5 | 53.8 | ||||
| Correct | 51.2 | 8.8 | 62.8 | 17.0 | ||||
| Incorrect | 2.0 | 13.9 | 1.0 | 19.3 | ||||
| Conflicting | 8.9 | 15.2 | 5.7 | 9.9 | ||||
a Using the sex-specific local weight-for-height (WFH) cutoffs, our subjects were defined as underweight (< 80% median WFH), normal weight (80% – 120% median WFH) and overweight/obese (> 120% median WFH).
UN = underweight; NW = normal weight; OV/OB = overweight/obese
Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for weight misperception in relation to different types of weight comments received by sex and weight statusa (N = 22612)
| Boys | Girls | ||||
| Adjustedb | p | Adjustedb | p | ||
| None | 1 | 1 | |||
| Correct | 0.16 (0.11–0.22) | < 0.001 | 0.18 (0.14–0.23) | < 0.001 | |
| Incorrectc | - | - | 6.88 (2.68–17.68) | < 0.001 | |
| Conflicting | 1.25 (0.80–1.94) | 0.3 | 0.74 (0.45–1.20) | 0.2 | |
| None | 1 | 1 | |||
| Correct | - | - | - | - | |
| Incorrect | 3.73 (3.28–4.23) | < 0.001 | 2.89 (2.67–3.13) | < 0.001 | |
| Conflicting | 1.73 (1.43–2.09) | < 0.001 | 1.93 (1.67–2.23) | < 0.001 | |
| None | 1 | 1 | |||
| Correct | 0.11 (0.08–0.15) | < 0.001 | 0.17 (0.11–0.26) | < 0.001 | |
| Incorrect | 4.75 (2.79–8.09) | < 0.001 | 12.7 (5.24–30.83) | < 0.001 | |
| Conflicting | 1.07 (0.80–1.44) | 0.7 | 0.97 (0.53–1.79) | 0.9 | |
a Using the sex-specific local weight-for-height (WFH) cutoffs, our subjects were defined as underweight (< 80% median WFH), normal weight (80% – 120% median WFH) and overweight/obese (> 120% median WFH).
UW = Underweight; NW = Normal weight; OV/OB = Overweight/Obese.
b Adjusted for age, highest parental education, family affluence, place of birth, BMI and school effect.
c OR cannot be calculated due to the insufficient number in the group (Underweight boys with weight misperception did not receive any incorrect comments).