| Literature DB >> 24593118 |
Ann DeSmet1, Benedicte Deforche, Anne Hublet, Ann Tanghe, Evi Stremersch, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obese youth are at increased risk for peer victimization, which may heighten their risk of psychosocial problems and physical activity avoidance, and lower the effectiveness of professional and lifestyle weight-loss initiatives. Little is known about obese adolescents' risk for victimization from cyber-bullying and how this relates to psychosocial functioning and healthy lifestyle barriers. The purpose of the study was to assess traditional and cyber-victimization among adolescents with severe obesity and its relation to psychosocial distress and barriers to healthy lifestyles.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24593118 PMCID: PMC3975929 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Factor structure of barrier and facilitator scale
| | | | |
| I avoided sports because I was afraid they would laugh at me | 2.35 | 1.38 | .830 |
| When I felt lonely or sad, I sometimes ate to feel better | 2.54 | 1.40 | .789 |
| I avoided socializing with peers who are slimmer than me | 1.63 | 0.88 | .691 |
| | | | |
| When I was criticized for not being sufficiently sportive, I tried to do something about it | 2.69 | 1.13 | .798 |
| I only ate fruit, vegetables and other low-calorie-food | 1.90 | 0.97 | .773 |
| I minded my weight to be liked by others | 2.50 | 1.13 | .738 |
| | | | |
| Being fit and sportive were important goals for me | 3.33 | 1.24 | .822 |
| I enjoyed sports and exercise | 3.20 | 1.15 | .699 |
Sample characteristics
| | | |
| Male | n = 39 (38.2%) | n = 39 (38.2%) |
| Female | n = 63 (61.8%) | n = 63 (61.8%) |
| | | |
| Average (±SD) | M = 15.32 ±1.71 | 15.30 ±1.73 |
| 11-12y | n = 4 (3.9%) | n = 4 (3.9%) |
| 13-14y | n = 29 (28.4%) | n = 29 (28.4%) |
| 15-16y | n = 43 (42.2%) | n = 43 (42.2%) |
| 17-18y | n = 26 (25.5%) | n = 26 (25.5%) |
| | | |
| General | n = 24 (30.0%) | n = 24 (30.0%) |
| Technical or vocational | n = 56 (70.0%) | n = 56 (70.0%) |
| n = 4 | n = 4 | |
| | | |
| Low (0–2) | n = 4 (3.9%) | n = 0 (0.0%) |
| Medium (3–5) | n = 39 (38.6%) | n = 37 (36.3%) |
| High (6–9) | n = 58 (57.4%) | n = 65 (63.7%) |
| n = 1 | n = 0 | |
| | | |
| Belgium | n = 95 (93.1%) | n = 91 (89.2%) |
| Other country | n = 7 (6.9%) | n = 11 (10.8%) |
| n = 0 | n = 0 | |
| | | |
| Average BMI (±SD) | 37.86 ±5.97 | 21.43 ±1.65 |
| Average BMI z-score (±SD) | 3.46 ±0.81 | 0.46 ±0.33 |
*figures only available from grade 9 onwards.
Prediction of traditional victimization and cyber-victimization by weight status, controlled for demographic variables
| | ||
| Obesitya | 1.665 (0.886-3.132) | 1.744 (0.915-3.323)° |
| Age | | 0.784 (0.645-0.952)* |
| Gender (girl)b | | 1.039 (0.538-2.005) |
| Family Affluence (high)c | | 0.950 (0.494-1.829) |
| | ||
| Obesitya | 2.436 (0.999-5.938)° | 2.547 (1.017-6.379)* |
| Age | | 0.647 (0.486-0.861)** |
| Gender (girl)b | | 1.176 (0.474-2.916) |
| Family Affluence (high)c | 0.702 (0.292-1.688) | |
°p <.1; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Reference category = 0; a0 = normal-weight youth, 1 = obese youth; b0 = boy, 1 = girl; c0 = low and medium FAS, 1 = high FAS.
Model 1: -2LL = 232.016; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.018; Model χ2(1) = 2.539, p = 0.111.
Model 2: -2LL = 224.849; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.064; Model χ2(4) = 9.082; p = 0.059.
Model 3: -2LL = 146.886; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.038; Model χ2(1) = 4.088; p = 0.043.
Model 4: -2LL = 135.898; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.137; Model χ2(4) = 15.076; p = 0.005.
Prediction of psychosocial distress by traditional victimization and cyber-victimization among obese youth, controlled for demographic variables
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted OR | | | |
| | |||
| Traditional victimization (victim)a | 0.529 (0.215-1.297) | 0.342 (0.144-0.812)* | 3.533 (1.438-8.685)** |
| Unadjusted OR | | | |
| | |||
| Cybervictimization (victim)b | 0.595 (0.199-1.780) | 0.404 (0.139-1.172)° | 6.315 (2.051-19.444)** |
| Adjusted OR | | | |
| | |||
| Traditional victimization (victim)a | 0.583 (0.205-1.662) | 0.325 (0.115-0.916)* | 2.421 (0.829-7.067) |
| Cybervictimization (victim)b | 0.589 (0.162-2.138) | 0.502 (0.141-1.788) | 5.647 (1.534-20.787)** |
| Age | 0.836 (0.635-1.101) | 0.798 (0.611-1.043)° | 1.217 (0.909-1.629) |
| Gender (girl)c | 0.628 (0.242-1.629) | 0.430 (0.169-1.094)° | 1.304 (0.474-3.583) |
| Family Affluence (high)d | 0.733 (0.293-1.836) | 0.748 (0.306-1.826) | 1.465 (0.541-3.970) |
°p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Reference category = 0; a0 = not victimized by traditional aggression, 1 = victimized by traditional aggression; b0 = not victimized by cyber aggression, 1 = victimized by cyber aggression; c0 = boy, 1 = girl; d0 = low and medium FAS, 1 = high FAS.
Model 1: -2LL = 120.286; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.028; Model χ2(1) = 1.925, p = 0.165.
Model 2: -2LL = 131.069; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.079; Model χ2(1) = 6.072; p = 0.079.
Model 3: -2LL = 116.122; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.104; Model χ2(1) = 7.698; p = 0.006.
Model 4: -2LL = 120.549; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.012; Model χ2(1) = 0.846; p = 0.358.
Model 5: -2LL = 130.736; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.038; Model χ2(1) = 2.838; p = 0.092.
Model 6: -2LL = 107.381; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.152; Model χ2(1) = 10.957; p = 0.001.
Model 7: -2LL = 114.277; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.071; Model χ2(5) = 4.920; p = 0.426.
Model 8: -2LL = 119.419; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.169; Model χ2(5) = 13.113; p = 0.022.
Model 9: -2LL = 102.672; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.212; Model χ2(5) = 15.665; p = 0.008.
Prediction of healthy lifestyle barriers and facilitators by traditional victimization and cybervictimization among obese youth, controlled for demographic variables
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted OR | | | |
| | |||
| Traditional victimization (victim)a | 3.007 (1.244-7.266)* | 1.919 (0.718-5.132) | 0.388 (0.160-0.946)* |
| | | | |
| | |||
| Cybervictimization (victim)b | 1.815 (0.616-5.350) | 1.313 (0.391-4.408) | 0.858 (0.292-2.522) |
| | | | |
| | |||
| Traditional victimization (victim)a | 3.620 (1.291-10.151)* | 2.001 (0.683-5.865) | 0.217 (0.069-0.677)** |
| Cybervictimization (victim)b | 1.160 (0.326-4.129) | 0.850 (0.649-1.114) | 0.785 (0.601-1.027) |
| Age | 1.215 (0.939-1.573) | 0.722 (0.289-1.807) | 1.105 (0.457-2.672) |
| Gender (girl)c | 1.485 (0.609-3.617) | 1.443 (0.562-3.705) | 0.356 (0.142-0.892) |
| Family Affluence (high)d | 1.141 (0.479-2.718) | 0.805 (0.205-3.158) | 1.448 (0.379-5.528) |
°p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Reference category = 0; a0 = not victimized by traditional aggression, 1 = victimized by traditional aggression; b0 = not victimized by cyber aggression, 1 = victimized by cyber aggression; c0 = boy, 1 = girl; d0 = low and medium FAS, 1 = high FAS.
Model 1: -2LL = 131.747; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.081; Model χ2(1) = 6.242, p = 0.012.
Model 2: -2LL = 112.982; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.028; Model χ2(1) = 1.746; p = 0.186.
Model 3: -2LL = 133.929; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.059; Model χ2(1) = 4.541; p = 0.033.
Model 4: -2LL = 133.204; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.016; Model χ2(1) = 1.180; p = 0.277.
Model 5: -2LL = 115.059; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.003; Model χ2(1) = 0.197; p = 0.658.
Model 6: -2LL = 135.411; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.001; Model χ2(1) = 0.078; p = 0.780.
Model 7: -2LL = 123.605; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.126; Model χ2(5) = 9.616; p = 0.087.
Model 8: -2LL = 109.315; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.067; Model χ2(5) = 4.286; p = 0.509.
Model 9: -2LL = 119.773; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.185; Model χ2(5) = 14.440; p = 0.013.