BACKGROUND: Obesity may cluster in families due to shared physical and social environments. PURPOSE: This study aims to identify family typologies of obesity risk based on family environments. METHODS: Using 2007-2008 data from 706 parent/youth dyads in Minnesota, we applied latent profile analysis and general linear models to evaluate associations between family typologies and body mass index (BMI) of youth and parents. RESULTS: Three typologies described most families with 18.8% "Unenriched/Obesogenic," 16.9% "Risky Consumer," and 64.3% "Healthy Consumer/Salutogenic." After adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic factors, parent BMI and youth BMI Z-scores were higher in unenriched/obesogenic families (BMI difference = 2.7, p < 0.01 and BMI Z-score difference = 0.51, p < 0.01, respectively) relative to the healthy consumer/salutogenic typology. In contrast, parent BMI and youth BMI Z-scores were similar in the risky consumer families relative to those in healthy consumer/salutogenic type. CONCLUSIONS: We can identify family types differing in obesity risks with implications for public health interventions.
BACKGROUND:Obesity may cluster in families due to shared physical and social environments. PURPOSE: This study aims to identify family typologies of obesity risk based on family environments. METHODS: Using 2007-2008 data from 706 parent/youth dyads in Minnesota, we applied latent profile analysis and general linear models to evaluate associations between family typologies and body mass index (BMI) of youth and parents. RESULTS: Three typologies described most families with 18.8% "Unenriched/Obesogenic," 16.9% "Risky Consumer," and 64.3% "Healthy Consumer/Salutogenic." After adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic factors, parent BMI and youth BMI Z-scores were higher in unenriched/obesogenic families (BMI difference = 2.7, p < 0.01 and BMI Z-score difference = 0.51, p < 0.01, respectively) relative to the healthy consumer/salutogenic typology. In contrast, parent BMI and youth BMI Z-scores were similar in the risky consumer families relative to those in healthy consumer/salutogenic type. CONCLUSIONS: We can identify family types differing in obesity risks with implications for public health interventions.
Authors: Allison A Hedley; Cynthia L Ogden; Clifford L Johnson; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan M Kurka; Marc A Adams; Michael Todd; Trina Colburn; James F Sallis; Kelli L Cain; Karen Glanz; Lawrence D Frank; Brian E Saelens Journal: Health Place Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Janet A Deatrick; Lamia P Barakat; George J Knafl; Wendy Hobbie; Sue Ogle; Jill P Ginsberg; Michael J Fisher; Thomas Hardie; Maureen Reilly; Elizabeth Broden; Jennifer Toth; Nicole SanGiacomo; Kathleen A Knafl Journal: J Fam Psychol Date: 2018-04
Authors: Meghan M JaKa; Elisabeth M Seburg; Simone A French; Julian Wolfson; Robert W Jeffery; Rona L Levy; Shelby L Langer; Nancy E Sherwood Journal: Health Behav Policy Rev Date: 2017-07