| Literature DB >> 20459776 |
Margherita Ferrante1, Maria Fiore, Gina E Sciacca, Luca Leon, Salvatore Sciacca, Marine Castaing, Gianbattista Modonutti.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight-related issues such as obesity, dieting and eating disorders in adolescents are major public health problems. Moreover, undertaking a diet tends to be common among school children and the reasons for doing so are not always related to weight status. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the role of body mass index (BMI), gender and self-esteem in the adoption of a diet in middle-school Sicilian children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20459776 PMCID: PMC2881097 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Weight status distribution by sex*
| Girls | Boys | Tot. Pop. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
| 53 | 49 | 102 | ||||
| 398 | 300 | 698 | ||||
| 71 | 123 | 194 | ||||
| 10 | 34 | 44 | ||||
| 233 | 274 | 507 | ||||
| 765 | 780 | 1545 | ||||
Sex- and age-specific cut-off points were based on international standards proposed by Cole [15]. For defining underweight, it was used a different criteria. In particular, the 3° percentile was used for the characterization of underweight [16,17].
*Some percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.
Weight status distribution according to school level by sex
| Girls | Boys | Tot. Pop. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |||
| Underweight | 14 | 16 | 30 | |||||
| Average weight | 90 | 82 | 172 | |||||
| Overweight | 25 | 12.7↓ | 33 | 19.0 | 58 | |||
| Obese | 3 | 18 | 21 | |||||
| Missing values | 90 | 120 | 210 | |||||
| Underweight | 18 | 20 | 38 | |||||
| Average weight | 147 | 97 | 244 | |||||
| Overweight | 24 | 11.2↓ | 42 | 20.5 | 66 | |||
| Obese | 5 | 6 | 11 | |||||
| Missing values | 64 | 69 | 133 | |||||
| Underweight | 21 | 13 | 34 | |||||
| Average weight | 161 | 121 | 282 | |||||
| Overweight | 22 | 8.4↓ | 48 | 20.9 | 70 | |||
| Obese | 2 | 10 | 12 | |||||
| Missing values | 79 | 85 | 164 | |||||
This table shows the BMI trend with the school level.
Percentages in the 3rd column sum up the overweight and obese categories. The arrows are for the decreasing trend of these percentages.
Figure 1Weight status distribution by provinces and sex. This figure presents comparison between the provinces studied.
Weight status distribution according to diet by sex*
| Girls (N = 765) | Boys (N = 780) | Tot. Pop. (N = 1545) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YD | ND | Missing | YD | ND | Missing | YD | ND | Missing | ||||||||||
| N | % | N | N | N | % | N | N | N | % | N | N | |||||||
| 6 | 44 | 3 | 4 | 40 | 5 | 10 | 84 | 8 | ||||||||||
| 114 | 273 | 11 | 52 | 232 | 16 | 166 | 505 | 27 | ||||||||||
| 38 | 32 | 1 | 49 | 68 | 6 | 87 | 100 | 7 | ||||||||||
| 7 | 3 | 0 | 20 | 11 | 3 | 27 | 14 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 75 | 83 | 75 | 42 | 86 | 146 | 117 | 169 | 221 | ||||||||||
| 240 | ||||||||||||||||||
This table shows the percentages of children who had been or had not been on a diet in the 3 months before the interview or did not give an answer.
*Some percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.
YD and ND are for being on a diet or not.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of diet by logistic regression
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys (n = 397) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Girls (n = 482) | 1.44 (1.14-1.83) | 1.72 (1.23-2.40) | ||
| Positive (n = 61) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Normal (n = 595) | 2.61 (1.39-4.91) | < 0.0001 | 2.55 (1.26-5.14) | 0.0002 |
| Negative (n = 223) | 1.51 (0.82-2.78) | 0.71 | 1.23 (0.63-2.39) | 0.20 |
| Underweight (n = 84) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Average-weight (n = 598) | 2.54 (1.32-4.87) | 0.005 | 3.85 (1.72-8.60) | 0.001 |
| Overweight (n = 165) | 6.72 (3.37-13.4) | < 0.0001 | 11.2 (4.78-26.1) | < 0.0001 |
| Obese (n = 32) | 14.9 (6.10-36.7) | < 0.0001 | 29.8 (9.82-90.5) | < 0.0001 |
| Palermo (n = 238) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Catania (n = 243) | 0.86 (0.63-1.18) | 0.46 | 0.78 (0.52-1.17) | 0.69 |
| Caltanissetta (n = 250) | 0.78 (0.57-1.06) | 0.80 | 0.78 (0.52-1.18) | 0.70 |
| Messina (n = 148) | 0.61 (0.42-0.88) | 0.03 | 0.49 (0.29-0.83) | 0.02 |
*Numbers were furnished for the multivariate analysis