| Literature DB >> 27825373 |
M Craike1, J A Young2, C M Symons2, M D Pain2, J T Harvey3, R M Eime2,3, W R Payne2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body dissatisfaction is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including impaired psychological health, low physical activity and disordered eating. This longitudinal study used the Factors Influencing Transitions in Girls' Active Leisure and Sport (FITGALS) dataset to examine trends in body image of adolescent females. Specifically, the study examined satisfaction with body size, physical appearance and dieting behaviour for two cohorts at transitional life phases in two geographic regions longitudinally over a 3-year period.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescence; Adolescent; Body image; Body satisfaction; Female; Longitudinal; Region
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27825373 PMCID: PMC5101732 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3815-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Number of participants in each year of the study (and the percentage of participants retained, compared to the first year of the study): by region and grade level at recruitment
| Year | Region | Grade level at recruitment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 7 | Grade 11 | ||
| 2008 | Metropolitan | 366 | 155 |
| Non-metropolitan | 123 | 88 | |
| 2009 | Metropolitan | 310 (85 %) | 123 (79 %) |
| Non-metropolitan | 99 (80 %) | 73 (83 %) | |
| 2010 | Metropolitan | 253 (69 %) | 70 (45 %) |
| Non-metropolitan | 81 (66 %) | 44 (50 %) | |
Frequencies (and percentages) of participants’ reports of body size: by region within grade level at recruitment within year
| Year | Grade level at recruitment | Region | ‘Too thin’ | ‘About right’ | ‘Too fat’ | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |||
| 2008 | 7 | Metropolitan | 33 | 10.1 | 198 | 60.6 | 96 | 29.4 | 327 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 7 | 6.0 | 65 | 55.6 | 45 | 38.5 | 117 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 9 | 6.3 | 83 | 57.6 | 52 | 36.1 | 144 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 3 | 3.6 | 52 | 62.7 | 28 | 33.7 | 83 | 100.0 | ||
| 2009 | 7 | Metropolitan | 22 | 7.6 | 171 | 59.0 | 97 | 33.4 | 290 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 8 | 8.7 | 42 | 45.7 | 42 | 45.7 | 92 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 12 | 10.4 | 57 | 49.6 | 46 | 40.0 | 115 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 2 | 3.0 | 44 | 65.7 | 21 | 31.3 | 67 | 100.0 | ||
| 2010 | 7 | Metropolitan | 20 | 8.3 | 129 | 53.8 | 91 | 37.9 | 240 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 6 | 7.7 | 33 | 42.3 | 39 | 50.0 | 78 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 8 | 12.1 | 26 | 39.4 | 32 | 48.5 | 66 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 2 | 4.5 | 24 | 54.5 | 18 | 40.9 | 44 | 100.0 | ||
| Total | 132 | 7.9 | 924 | 55.6 | 607 | 36.5 | 1663 | 100.0 | ||
Frequencies of participants’ reports of body size; aggregated over years and showing odds ratios (OR) for grade levels within regions
| Region | Grade level at recruitment | ‘Too fat’ | ‘About right’ | Odds | OR | 95 % CIs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | |||||
| Metropolitan | 7 | 284 | 36.3 | 498 | 63.7 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.555–0.956 |
| 11 | 130 | 43.9 | 166 | 56.1 | 0.78 | |||
| Non-metropolitan | 7 | 126 | 47.4 | 140 | 52.6 | 0.90 | 1.61 | 1.098–2.366 |
| 11 | 67 | 35.8 | 120 | 64.2 | 0.56 | |||
Fig. 1Percentage of participants’ reports of body size; aggregated over years
Frequency (and percentage) of participants’ reports of physical appearance: by region within grade level at recruitment within year
| Year | Grade level at recruitment | Region | ‘Better looking than average’ | ‘About average’ | ‘Worse looking than average’ | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |||
| 2008 | 7 | Metropolitan | 106 | 35.5 | 155 | 51.8 | 38 | 12.7 | 299 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 24 | 26.1 | 51 | 55.4 | 17 | 18.5 | 92 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 32 | 25.2 | 71 | 55.9 | 24 | 18.9 | 127 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 24 | 33.8 | 41 | 57.7 | 6 | 8.5 | 71 | 100.0 | ||
| 2009 | 7 | Metropolitan | 67 | 25.9 | 143 | 55.2 | 49 | 18.9 | 259 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 16 | 19.5 | 52 | 63.4 | 14 | 17.1 | 82 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 21 | 24.1 | 52 | 59.8 | 14 | 16.1 | 87 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 17 | 27.4 | 40 | 64.5 | 5 | 8.1 | 62 | 100.0 | ||
| 2010 | 7 | Metropolitan | 63 | 28.8 | 120 | 54.8 | 36 | 16.4 | 219 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 10 | 13.9 | 42 | 58.3 | 20 | 27.8 | 72 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 12 | 7.1 | 120 | 71.4 | 36 | 21.4 | 168 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 17 | 41.5 | 22 | 53.7 | 2 | 4.9 | 41 | 100.0 | ||
| Total | 409 | 25.9 | 909 | 57.6 | 261 | 16.5 | 1579 | 100.0 | ||
Note: There were no statistically significant main effects for year, region or grade level, and no significant interactions
Frequencies (and percentages) of responses to the question ‘Are you on a diet?: by region within grade level within year
| Year | Grade level at recruitment | Region | ‘Not on a diet because I don’t need to lose weight’ | ‘Yes, I’m on a diet’ | ‘Not on a diet but needing to lose weight’ | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |||
| 2008 | 7 | Metropolitan | 245 | 69.0 | 18 | 5.1 | 92 | 25.9 | 355 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 79 | 65.3 | 5 | 4.1 | 37 | 30.6 | 121 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 84 | 38.4 | 52 | 23.7 | 83 | 37.9 | 219 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 49 | 53.8 | 17 | 18.7 | 25 | 27.5 | 91 | 100.0 | ||
| 2009 | 7 | Metropolitan | 184 | 59.7 | 30 | 9.7 | 94 | 30.5 | 308 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 54 | 55.1 | 5 | 5.1 | 39 | 39.8 | 98 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 62 | 51.2 | 17 | 14.0 | 42 | 34.7 | 121 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 43 | 62.3 | 9 | 13.0 | 17 | 24.6 | 69 | 100.0 | ||
| 2010 | 7 | Metropolitan | 137 | 55.2 | 34 | 13.7 | 77 | 31.0 | 248 | 100.0 |
| Non-metropolitan | 43 | 53.1 | 5 | 6.2 | 33 | 40.7 | 81 | 100.0 | ||
| 11 | Metropolitan | 35 | 50.0 | 11 | 15.7 | 24 | 34.3 | 70 | 100.0 | |
| Non-metropolitan | 25 | 55.6 | 4 | 8.9 | 16 | 35.6 | 45 | 100.0 | ||
| Total | 1040 | 57.0 | 207 | 11.3 | 579 | 31.7 | 1826 | 100.0 | ||
Note: Statistically significant main effects for year (Wald Chi-Square (2) = 15.020, p = 0.001) and grade level (Wald Chi-square (1) = 10.001, p = 0.002) but not for region in comparison between participants on a diet and those who were not on a diet because their weight was fine. There were no significant interactions
Statistically significant main effect was found for grade level (Wald Chi-Square (1) = 5.948, p = 0.015), but not for year, nor for region, in comparison between those on a diet compared to those who were not on a diet but did need to lose weight. There were no significant interactions