Andrew Stokes1, Yu Ni2. 1. Department of Global Health and Center for Global Health and Development, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA. Electronic address: acstokes@bu.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data on weight history may enhance the predictive validity of epidemiologic models of the health risks of obesity, but collecting such data is often not feasible. In this study, we investigate the validity of a summary measure of weight history. METHODS: We evaluated the quality of reporting of maximum weight in a sample of adults aged 50-84 years using data from the Health and Retirement Study. Recalled max body mass index (BMI, measured in kilogram per square meter) based on recalled weight in 2004 was compared with calculated max BMI based on self-reported weight collected biennially between 1992 and 2004. Logistic regression was used to assess similarity between the measures in predicting prevalent conditions. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between recalled and calculated max weight in the overall sample was 0.95. Recalled max BMI value was within three BMI units of the calculated value 91.4% of the time. The proportions of individuals with obese I (BMI: 30.0-34.9), obese II (BMI: 35.0-39.9), and obese III (BMI: 40.0 and above) were 28.8%, 12.7%, and 6.6% using recalled values compared with 27.1%, 10.5%, and 4.9% using calculated values. In multivariate analyses, the two BMI measures similarly predicted disease prevalence across a number of chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Recalled max BMI was strongly correlated with max BMI calculated over the 12-year period before recall, suggesting that this measure can serve as a reliable summary measure of recent weight status. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: Data on weight history may enhance the predictive validity of epidemiologic models of the health risks of obesity, but collecting such data is often not feasible. In this study, we investigate the validity of a summary measure of weight history. METHODS: We evaluated the quality of reporting of maximum weight in a sample of adults aged 50-84 years using data from the Health and Retirement Study. Recalled max body mass index (BMI, measured in kilogram per square meter) based on recalled weight in 2004 was compared with calculated max BMI based on self-reported weight collected biennially between 1992 and 2004. Logistic regression was used to assess similarity between the measures in predicting prevalent conditions. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between recalled and calculated max weight in the overall sample was 0.95. Recalled max BMI value was within three BMI units of the calculated value 91.4% of the time. The proportions of individuals with obese I (BMI: 30.0-34.9), obese II (BMI: 35.0-39.9), and obese III (BMI: 40.0 and above) were 28.8%, 12.7%, and 6.6% using recalled values compared with 27.1%, 10.5%, and 4.9% using calculated values. In multivariate analyses, the two BMI measures similarly predicted disease prevalence across a number of chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS:Recalled max BMI was strongly correlated with max BMI calculated over the 12-year period before recall, suggesting that this measure can serve as a reliable summary measure of recent weight status. Copyright Â
Keywords:
Aging and life course; Body mass index; Epidemiology; Health and Retirement Study; Maximum weight; Mortality; Obesity; Overweight; Validation; Weight histories
Authors: Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Patricia Hartge; James R Cerhan; Alan J Flint; Lindsay Hannan; Robert J MacInnis; Steven C Moore; Geoffrey S Tobias; Hoda Anton-Culver; Laura Beane Freeman; W Lawrence Beeson; Sandra L Clipp; Dallas R English; Aaron R Folsom; D Michal Freedman; Graham Giles; Niclas Hakansson; Katherine D Henderson; Judith Hoffman-Bolton; Jane A Hoppin; Karen L Koenig; I-Min Lee; Martha S Linet; Yikyung Park; Gaia Pocobelli; Arthur Schatzkin; Howard D Sesso; Elisabete Weiderpass; Bradley J Willcox; Alicja Wolk; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Walter C Willett; Michael J Thun Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sun Ha Jee; Jae Woong Sull; Jungyong Park; Sang-Yi Lee; Heechoul Ohrr; Eliseo Guallar; Jonathan M Samet Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deborah A Boggs; Lynn Rosenberg; Yvette C Cozier; Lauren A Wise; Patricia F Coogan; Edward A Ruiz-Narvaez; Julie R Palmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew Stokes; Jason M Collins; Bethany F Grant; Robin F Scamuffa; Chia-Wen Hsiao; Stephen S Johnston; Eric M Ammann; JoAnn E Manson; Samuel H Preston Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Edward Yu; Sylvia H Ley; JoAnn E Manson; Walter Willett; Ambika Satija; Frank B Hu; Andrew Stokes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kaitlyn M Berry; Tuhina Neogi; Joshua F Baker; Jason M Collins; Jason R Waggoner; Chia-Wen Hsiao; Stephen S Johnston; Michael P LaValley; Andrew C Stokes Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Wubin Xie; Dielle J Lundberg; Jason M Collins; Stephen S Johnston; Jason R Waggoner; Chia-Wen Hsiao; Samuel H Preston; JoAnn E Manson; Andrew C Stokes Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-08-03