A Hayes1, E Gearon2, K Backholer2, A Bauman1, A Peeters2. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. 1] Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [2] School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research efforts have focused mainly on trends in obesity among populations, or changes in mean body mass index (BMI), without consideration of changes in BMI across the BMI spectrum. Examination of age-specific changes in BMI distribution may reveal patterns that are relevant to targeting of interventions. METHODS: Using a synthetic cohort approach (which matches members of cross-sectional surveys by birth year) we estimated population representative annual BMI change across two time periods (1980 to 1989 and 1995 to 2008) by age, sex, socioeconomic position and quantiles of BMI. Our study population was a total of 27349 participants from four nationally representative Australian health surveys; Risk Factor Prevalence Study surveys (1980 and 1989), the 1995 National Nutrition Survey and the 2007/8 National Health Survey. RESULTS: We found greater mean BMI increases in younger people, in those already overweight and in those with lower education. For men, age-specific mean annual BMI change was very similar in the 1980s and the early 2000s (P=0.39), but there was a recent slowing down of annual BMI gain for older women in the 2000s compared with their same-age counterparts in the 1980s (P<0.05). BMI change was not uniform across the BMI distribution, with different patterns by age and sex in different periods. Young adults had much greater BMI gain at higher BMI quantiles, thus adding to the increased right skew in BMI, whereas BMI gain for older populations was more even across the BMI distribution. CONCLUSIONS: The synthetic cohort technique provided useful information from serial cross-sectional survey data. The quantification of annual BMI change has contributed to an understanding of the epidemiology of obesity progression and identified key target groups for policy attention-young adults, those who are already overweight and those of lower socioeconomic status.
BACKGROUND: Research efforts have focused mainly on trends in obesity among populations, or changes in mean body mass index (BMI), without consideration of changes in BMI across the BMI spectrum. Examination of age-specific changes in BMI distribution may reveal patterns that are relevant to targeting of interventions. METHODS: Using a synthetic cohort approach (which matches members of cross-sectional surveys by birth year) we estimated population representative annual BMI change across two time periods (1980 to 1989 and 1995 to 2008) by age, sex, socioeconomic position and quantiles of BMI. Our study population was a total of 27349 participants from four nationally representative Australian health surveys; Risk Factor Prevalence Study surveys (1980 and 1989), the 1995 National Nutrition Survey and the 2007/8 National Health Survey. RESULTS: We found greater mean BMI increases in younger people, in those already overweight and in those with lower education. For men, age-specific mean annual BMI change was very similar in the 1980s and the early 2000s (P=0.39), but there was a recent slowing down of annual BMI gain for older women in the 2000s compared with their same-age counterparts in the 1980s (P<0.05). BMI change was not uniform across the BMI distribution, with different patterns by age and sex in different periods. Young adults had much greater BMI gain at higher BMI quantiles, thus adding to the increased right skew in BMI, whereas BMI gain for older populations was more even across the BMI distribution. CONCLUSIONS: The synthetic cohort technique provided useful information from serial cross-sectional survey data. The quantification of annual BMI change has contributed to an understanding of the epidemiology of obesity progression and identified key target groups for policy attention-young adults, those who are already overweight and those of lower socioeconomic status.
Authors: D T Levy; P L Mabry; Y C Wang; S Gortmaker; T T-K Huang; T Marsh; M Moodie; B Swinburn Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Kenneth F Adams; Michael F Leitzmann; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Demetrius Albanes; Tamara B Harris; Albert Hollenbeck; Victor Kipnis Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kathryn Backholer; Haider R Mannan; Dianna J Magliano; Helen L Walls; Chris Stevenson; Alison Beauchamp; Jonathan E Shaw; Anna Peeters Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: David W Dunstan; Paul Z Zimmet; Timothy A Welborn; Adrian J Cameron; Jonathan Shaw; Maximilian de Courten; Damien Jolley; Daniel J McCarty Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Haoyi Fu; Nicola L Hawley; Jenna C Carlson; Emily M Russell; Alysa Pomer; Hong Cheng; Take Naseri; Muagututi'a Sefuiva Reupena; Ranjan Deka; Courtney C Choy; Stephen T McGarvey; Ryan L Minster; Daniel E Weeks Journal: Obes Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Lukas Andereggen; Janine Frey; Robert H Andres; Markus M Luedi; Jan Gralla; Gerrit A Schubert; Jürgen Beck; Luigi Mariani; Emanuel Christ Journal: J Clin Transl Endocrinol Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: Lyndal Wellard-Cole; Alyse Davies; Juliana Chen; Jisu Jung; Kim B Bente; Judy Kay; Wendy L Watson; Clare Hughes; Anna Rangan; Kalina Yacef; Irena Koprinska; Kathy Chapman; Nim Ting Wong; Luke Gemming; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Adrian Bauman; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Lyndal Wellard-Cole; Jisu Jung; Judy Kay; Anna Rangan; Kathy Chapman; Wendy L Watson; Clare Hughes; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Adrian Bauman; Luke Gemming; Kalina Yacef; Irena Koprinska; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-01-26