OBJECTIVE: To assess parental understanding of body mass index (BMI) and BMI percentiles by using standard versus color-coded charts; to investigate how parental literacy and/or numeracy (quantitative skills) affects that understanding. METHODS: A convenience sample of 163 parents of children aged 2 to 8 years at 2 academic pediatric centers completed a demographics questionnaire, the mathematics portion of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3R), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA), and an "Understanding BMI" questionnaire, which included parallel BMI charting questions to compare understanding of standard versus color-coded BMI charting. Outcomes included parental-reported versus actual understanding of BMI, the odds (obtained by generalized estimating equations) of answering parallel questions correctly by using standard versus color-coded charting, and odds of answering questions correctly on the basis of numeracy and literacy. RESULTS: Many parents (60%) reported knowing what BMI was, but only 30% could define it even roughly correctly. When parents used color-coded charts, they had greater odds of answering parallel BMI charting questions correctly than when they used standard charts (mean, 88% vs 65% correct; pooled adjusted odds ratio, 4.32; 95% confidence interval, 3.14-5.95; P < .01). Additionally, parents with lower numeracy (K-5 level) benefited more from color-coded charts (increased from 51% to 81% correct) than did higher numeracy parents (high school level or greater), who performed well with both charts (89% vs 99% correct). CONCLUSIONS: Parents consistently performed better with color-coded than standard BMI charts. Color-coding was particularly helpful for lower numeracy parents. Future studies should investigate whether these results translate into the office setting and whether understanding motivates parents to implement important lifestyle changes.
OBJECTIVE: To assess parental understanding of body mass index (BMI) and BMI percentiles by using standard versus color-coded charts; to investigate how parental literacy and/or numeracy (quantitative skills) affects that understanding. METHODS: A convenience sample of 163 parents of children aged 2 to 8 years at 2 academic pediatric centers completed a demographics questionnaire, the mathematics portion of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3R), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA), and an "Understanding BMI" questionnaire, which included parallel BMI charting questions to compare understanding of standard versus color-coded BMI charting. Outcomes included parental-reported versus actual understanding of BMI, the odds (obtained by generalized estimating equations) of answering parallel questions correctly by using standard versus color-coded charting, and odds of answering questions correctly on the basis of numeracy and literacy. RESULTS: Many parents (60%) reported knowing what BMI was, but only 30% could define it even roughly correctly. When parents used color-coded charts, they had greater odds of answering parallel BMI charting questions correctly than when they used standard charts (mean, 88% vs 65% correct; pooled adjusted odds ratio, 4.32; 95% confidence interval, 3.14-5.95; P < .01). Additionally, parents with lower numeracy (K-5 level) benefited more from color-coded charts (increased from 51% to 81% correct) than did higher numeracy parents (high school level or greater), who performed well with both charts (89% vs 99% correct). CONCLUSIONS: Parents consistently performed better with color-coded than standard BMI charts. Color-coding was particularly helpful for lower numeracy parents. Future studies should investigate whether these results translate into the office setting and whether understanding motivates parents to implement important lifestyle changes.
Authors: Kyung E Rhee; Cynthia W De Lago; Tonya Arscott-Mills; Supriya D Mehta; Renee' Krysko Davis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kerri Cavanaugh; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Kenneth A Wallston; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Pratt Gregory; Lynn Fuchs; Robb Malone; Andrea Cherrington; Michael Pignone; Darren A DeWalt; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nicole Lokker; Lee Sanders; Eliana M Perrin; Disha Kumar; Joanne Finkle; Vivian Franco; Leena Choi; Philip E Johnston; Russell L Rothman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lauren M Rossen; Yelena N Tarasenko; Amy M Branum; Alan E Simon; Kenneth C Schoendorf Journal: Child Obes Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 2.992
Authors: Nicolas M Oreskovic; Richard Fletcher; Mona Sharifi; John D Knutsen; Ani Chilingirian; Elsie M Taveras Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Richard O White; Jessica R Thompson; Russell L Rothman; Amanda M McDougald Scott; William J Heerman; Evan C Sommer; Shari L Barkin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-08-19
Authors: Candice Taylor Lucas; Mary Jo Messito; Rachel S Gross; Suzy Tomopoulos; Arthur H Fierman; Carolyn Brockmeyer Cates; Samantha Berkule Johnson; Benard Dreyer; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: William J Heerman; Eliana M Perrin; H Shonna Yin; Lee M Sanders; Svetlana K Eden; Ayumi Shintani; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Andrea B Bronaugh; Shari L Barkin; Russell L Rothman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.043