I D Fernandez1, C A Hoffmire, C M Olson. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642-0644, USA. Diana_Fernandez@urmc.rochester.edu
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the gestational weight gain distributions of healthy adolescents with optimal birth outcomes and compare them to the current 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis to conduct a population-based, cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Central and Finger Lakes regions of New York state (Perinatal Database System). PARTICIPANTS: 6995 adolescents with healthy singleton pregnancies (1996 to 2002). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentiles of the gestational weight gain distributions were compared within body mass index (BMI) groups categorized using 2 different classification schemes: adolescent BMI percentiles and adult BMI cut-points. We compared these distributions overall and within racial and age groups. RESULTS: The gestational weight gain distribution does not differ considerably when BMI is classified using adolescent or adult cutoffs. Adolescents have good birth outcomes across a wider gestational weight gain range than recommended by the Institute of Medicine regardless of how pre-pregnancy weight status is categorized. For example, overweight adolescents by adult cutoffs have a range of gestational weight gain from 5.0 kg to 30.0 kg, and overweight adolescents by percentile cutoffs have a range from 5.4 kg to 29.5 kg, whereas the IOM range is 7.5-11.5 kg. Black and young adolescents have a similar distribution to their white and older counterparts. CONCLUSION: Practitioners can safely use the new IOM gestational weight gain ranges to monitor weight gain in pregnant adolescent patients using adult BMI classifications. Future research should examine the range of gestational weight gain in adolescents considering a broader scope of birth and maternal outcomes.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the gestational weight gain distributions of healthy adolescents with optimal birth outcomes and compare them to the current 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis to conduct a population-based, cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Central and Finger Lakes regions of New York state (Perinatal Database System). PARTICIPANTS: 6995 adolescents with healthy singleton pregnancies (1996 to 2002). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentiles of the gestational weight gain distributions were compared within body mass index (BMI) groups categorized using 2 different classification schemes: adolescent BMI percentiles and adult BMI cut-points. We compared these distributions overall and within racial and age groups. RESULTS: The gestational weight gain distribution does not differ considerably when BMI is classified using adolescent or adult cutoffs. Adolescents have good birth outcomes across a wider gestational weight gain range than recommended by the Institute of Medicine regardless of how pre-pregnancy weight status is categorized. For example, overweight adolescents by adult cutoffs have a range of gestational weight gain from 5.0 kg to 30.0 kg, and overweight adolescents by percentile cutoffs have a range from 5.4 kg to 29.5 kg, whereas the IOM range is 7.5-11.5 kg. Black and young adolescents have a similar distribution to their white and older counterparts. CONCLUSION: Practitioners can safely use the new IOM gestational weight gain ranges to monitor weight gain in pregnant adolescent patients using adult BMI classifications. Future research should examine the range of gestational weight gain in adolescents considering a broader scope of birth and maternal outcomes.
Authors: William Cameron Chumlea; Christine M Schubert; Alex F Roche; Howard E Kulin; Peter A Lee; John H Himes; Shumei S Sun Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Shayna D Cunningham; Shilpa Mokshagundam; Hannah Chai; Jessica B Lewis; Jessica Levine; Jonathan N Tobin; Jeannette R Ickovics Journal: J Midwifery Womens Health Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Kiley B Vander Wyst; Megan E Vercelli; Kimberly O O'Brien; Elizabeth M Cooper; Eva K Pressman; Corrie M Whisner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240