| Literature DB >> 22776157 |
Alicia Matijasevich1, Iná S Santos, Ana M B Menezes, Aluísio J D Barros, Denise P Gigante, Bernardo L Horta, Fernando C Barros, Cesar G Victora.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in child nutrition may change rapidly over time, particularly in populations undergoing the nutrition transition. Yet, the few available studies are repeated cross-sectional surveys. By studying three prospective birth cohorts in the same city over a period of more than two decades, we describe secular trends in overweight and stunting at different ages, according to socioeconomic position.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22776157 PMCID: PMC3490989 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Time trends in the prevalence of nutritional indicators in the Pelotas cohort studies
| 5914 | 5249 | 4231 | | |
| Underweight | 7.1 (418) | 7.8 (405) | 7.9 (332) | 0.118 |
| Stunting | (−) | 9.3 (476) | 12.4 (513) | <0.001b |
| Wasting | (−) | 3.6 (179) | 1.3 (50) | <0.001b |
| Overweight | (−) | 2.2 (112) | 2.5 (105) | 0.261 b |
| 1457 | 1361 | 3907 | | |
| Underweight | 4.0 (58) | 2.6 (65) | 2.2 (86) | 0.001 |
| Stunting | 8.5 (123) | 9.2 (182) | 6.0 (232) | 0.001 |
| Wasting | 2.1 (30) | 0.7 (17) | 0.6 (25) | <0.001 |
| Overweight | 6.9 (101) | 10.8 (129) | 8.9 (347) | 0.107 |
| 4939 | | 3869 | | |
| Underweight | 3.1 (154) | (−) | 2.0 (77) | 0.001b |
| Stunting | 13.9 (687) | (−) | 5.0 (192) | <0.001b |
| Wasting | 0.8 (37) | (−) | 0.8 (29) | 0.995b |
| Overweight | 8.5 (418) | (−) | 8.3 (320) | 0.781b |
| 4742 | 1243 | 3799 | | |
| Underweight | 2.3(109) | 2.4 (39) | 1.7 (64) | 0.051 |
| Stunting | 10.9 (518) | 5.3 (92) | 3.6 (138) | <0.001 |
| Wasting | 0.3 (16) | 0.4 (10) | 0.6 (21) | 0.130 |
| Overweight | 7.6 (358) | 10.7 (121) | 12.3 (463) | <0.001 |
(−) Data not available.
a When 3 data points were available a x2 test for linear trend was used.
b For 2 data point a x2 test for heterogeneity was employed.
Stunting prevalence per cohort and family income quintile, at 1, 2 and 4 years
| 1982 | 19.8 | 10.6 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 3.6 | −16.80 (−21.80; -11.82) | 0.10 (0.04; 0.21) |
| 1993 | 16.8 | 11.5 | 6.9 | 5.4 | 4.8 | −18.52 (−24.84; -12.19) | 0.19 (0.11; 0.34) |
| 2004 | 8.1 | 9.1 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 3.1 | −7.60 (−10.23; -4.98) | 0.25 (0.15; 0.40) |
| 1982 | 28.9 | 21.8 | 10.1 | 7.1 | 3.6 | −32.04 (−35.34; -28.74) | 0.05 (0.04; 0.07) |
| 2004 | 8.8 | 8.4 | 3.8 | 2.4 | 1.5 | −10.34 (−12.74; -7.93) | 0.09 (0.05; 0.17) |
| 1982 | 26.0 | 16.0 | 6.3 | 5.3 | 2.7 | −27.79 (−30.83; -24.75) | 0.04 (0.03; 0.06) |
| 1993 | 11.8 | 4.6 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 2.6 | −14.24 (−19.34; -9.15) | 0.11 (0.05; 0.25) |
| 2004 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | −7.21 (−9.30; -5.11) | 0.11 (0.06; 0.21) |
CI = confidence interval; SII = slope index of inequality; RII = relative index of inequality.
* x2 test for heterogeneity to assess whether the coefficients of SII and RII are different across the three cohort studies.
Figure 1Height-for-age z score distribution for lower and upper income quintiles at 4 years of age.
Overweight prevalence, per cohort and family income quintile, at 1, 2 and 4 years
| | | | | | | | |
| 1982 | 5.0 | 7.9 | 4.4 | 7.8 | 9.2 | 3.93 (−0.69; 8.55) | 1.85 (0.90; 3.80) |
| 1993 | 12.9 | 9.9 | 8.0 | 14.4 | 9.1 | −0.14 (−5.66; 5.38) | 0.98 (0.52; 1.87) |
| 2004 | 9.2 | 8.1 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 8.4 | −0.12 (−3.29; 3.05) | 0.99 (0.67; 1.46) |
| | | | | | | | |
| 1982 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 8.5 | 9.9 | 10.5 | 5.05 (2.31; 7.80) | 1.93 (1.35; 2.76) |
| 2004 | 7.5 | 8.2 | 7.0 | 8.9 | 10.0 | 2.86 (−0.22; 5.94) | 1.46 (0.97; 2.18) |
| | | | | | | | |
| 1982 | 5.3 | 6.4 | 5.4 | 9.8 | 10.8 | 7.18 (4.52; 9.84) | 2.84 (1.92; 4.20) |
| 1993 | 6.0 | 10.1 | 8.7 | 13.5 | 16.0 | 12.69 (6.83; 18.54) | 4.36 (2.18; 8.73) |
| 2004 | 8.7 | 10.3 | 12.6 | 14.9 | 15.2 | 8.80 (5.09; 12.51) | 2.27 (1.61; 3.22) |
CI = confidence interval; SII = slope index of inequality; RII = relative index of inequality.
* x2 test for heterogeneity to assess whether the coefficients of SII and RII are different across the three cohort studies.
Figure 2Body mass index-for-age z score distribution for lower and upper income quintiles among 4 year-olds.
Figure 3Trends in height-for-age z score for lower and upper income quintile among 4 year-olds.