| Literature DB >> 28445494 |
Jéssica Pedroso1, Natacha Toral1, Muriel Bauermann Gubert1.
Abstract
Maternal perception of child's nutritional status has a potential impact on the identification, prevention, and treatment of childhood overweight. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of misperception and factors associated with maternal perception of the nutritional status of first- to third-grade elementary school students from private schools in the Federal District, Brazil. This cross-sectional study was conducted with 554 mother-child pairs. Children's nutritional status was assessed by measuring their weight and height. The mothers completed an online questionnaire about sociodemographic data, maternal nutritional status, maternal perception of her own nutritional status (silhouette scale for female adults), and maternal perception of child's nutritional status (silhouette scale for children). Only 30.0% of the mothers were successful in choosing the most appropriate silhouette to represent child's nutritional status. Highly educated mothers (Adjusted OR = 1.51) and mothers of male children (Adjusted OR = 2.53) or of non-overweight children (Adjusted OR = 1.65) were more likely to underestimate child's nutritional status. Conversely, mothers below 35 years of age (Adjusted OR = 1.85) and mothers of female children (Adjusted OR = 2.24) or of overweight children (Adjusted OR = 1.94) were more likely to overestimate child's nutritional status. There was a high prevalence of misperception, which shows the need for interventions for children that take into account the relevance of mother's role and the adequate recognition of child's nutritional status.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28445494 PMCID: PMC5405958 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic and nutritional status data on 554 first- to third-year elementary school students of private schools and their respective mothers.
Brasília (DF). 2015.
| Study variables | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| 280 | 50.5 | |
| 274 | 49.5 | |
| 366 | 66.1 | |
| 188 | 33.9 | |
| 335 | 60.5 | |
| 219 | 39.5 | |
| 193 | 34.8 | |
| 361 | 65.2 | |
| 71 | 12.8 | |
| 483 | 87.2 | |
| 279 | 50.4 | |
| 275 | 49.6 | |
| 357 | 64.4 | |
| 197 | 35.6 | |
| 175 | 31.6 | |
| 142 | 25.6 | |
| 237 | 42.8 |
a: minimum wage at the time of the study: 788.00 Brazilian reais, equivalent to US$ 209.60.
Maternal perception about the nutritional status of 554 first to third-year elementary school students of private schools, according to type and level of misperception.
Brasília (DF). 2015.
| Did not misperceive nutritional status | Type and level of misperception | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Underestimated nutritional status | Overestimated nutritional status | |||||
| Mildly | Moderately or severely | Mildly | Moderately or severely | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| 166 (30.0) | 164 (29.6) | 69 (12.4) | 97 (17.5) | 58 (10.5) | 554 (100.0) | |
| 111 (30.3) | 121 (33.1) | 48 (13.1) | 61 (16.7) | 25 (6.8) | 366 (100.0) | |
| 36 (30.8) | 34 (29.1) | 12 (10.2) | 24 (20.5) | 11 (9.4) | 117 (100.0) | |
| 19 (26.8) | 9 (12.7) | 9 (12.6) | 12 (16.9) | 22 (31.0) | 71 (100.0) | |
n = 233, prevalence = 42.0%
n = 155, prevalence = 28.0%.
Biavriate association of sociodemographic and maternal variables with the presence/absence of underestimation and overestimation of child's nutritional status.
Brasília (DF). 2015.
| Underestimated | Did not underestimate | Overestimated | Did not overestimate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| | 146 (52.1) | 134 (47.9) | 58 (20.7) | 222 (79.3) | ||
| | 87 (31.8) | 187 (68.2) | 97 (35.4) | 177 (64.6) | ||
| 0.41 | 0.63 | |||||
| | 55 (37.4) | 92 (62.6) | 45 (30.6) | 102 (69.4) | ||
| | 89 (43.8) | 114 (56.2) | 57 (28.1) | 146 (71.9) | ||
| | 89 (43.6) | 115 (56.4) | 53 (26.0) | 151 (74.0) | ||
| <0.01 | <0.01 | |||||
| | 169 (46.2) | 197 (53.8) | 86 (23.5) | 280 (76.5) | ||
| | 64 (34.0) | 124 (66.0) | 69 (36.7) | 119 (63.3) | ||
| 0.30 | 0.66 | |||||
| | 135 (40.3) | 200 (59.7) | 96 (28.7) | 239 (71.3) | ||
| | 98 (44.7) | 121 (55.3) | 59 (26.9) | 160 (73.1) | ||
| 0.58 | < 0.01 | |||||
| | 78 (40.4) | 115 (59.6) | 70 (36.3) | 123 (63.7) | ||
| | 155 (42.9) | 206 (57.1) | 85 (23.5) | 276 (76.5) | ||
| 0.58 | 0.60 | |||||
| | 32 (45.1) | 39 (54.9) | 18 (25.4) | 53 (74.6) | ||
| | 201 (41.6) | 282 (58.4) | 137 (28.4) | 346 (71.6) | ||
| 0.03 | 0.06 | |||||
| | 105 (37.6) | 174 (62.4) | 88 (31.5) | 191 (68.5) | ||
| | 128 (46.5) | 147 (53.5) | 67 (24.4) | 208 (75.6) | ||
| 0.46 | 0.57 | |||||
| | 146 (40.9) | 211 (59.1) | 97 (27.2) | 260 (72.8) | ||
| | 87 (44.2) | 110 (55.8) | 58 (29.4) | 139 (70.6) | ||
| 0.92 | 0.89 | |||||
| | 72 (41.1) | 103 (58.9) | 48 (27.4) | 127 (72.6) | ||
| | 59 (41.5) | 83 (58.5) | 42 (29.6) | 100 (70.4) | ||
| | 102 (43.0) | 135 (57.0) | 65 (27.4) | 172 (72.6) | ||
| 0.18 | 0.03 | |||||
| | 40 (48.8) | 42 (51.2) | 15 (18.3) | 67 (81.7) | ||
| | 193 (40.9) | 279 (59.1) | 140 (29.7) | 332 (70.3) | ||
| 0.04 | 0.17 | |||||
| | 147 (39.1) | 229 (60.9) | 112 (29.8) | 264 (70.2) | ||
| | 86 (48.3) | 92 (51.7) | 43 (24.2) | 135 (75.8) |
Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio for underestimation and overestimation of child's nutritional status according to associated factors.
Brasília (DF). 2015.
| Presence of underestimation | Presence of overestimation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated factors | OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI)a | OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI)b |
| | 2.34 | 2.53 | 1 | 1 |
| (1.66–3.31) | (1.77–3.61) | |||
| | 1 | 1 | 2.10 | 2.24 |
| (1.43–3.07) | (1.51–3.32) | |||
| | 1.66 | 1.65 | 1 | 1 |
| (1.15–2.39) | (1.12–2.41) | |||
| | 1 | 1 | 1.89 | 1.94 |
| (1.29–2.77) | (1.30–2.91) | |||
| | 1.85 | 1.85 | ||
| (1.26–2.71) | (1.23–2.77) | |||
| | 1 | 1 | ||
| | 1 | 1 | 1.43 | 1.31 |
| (0.98–2.08) | (0.85–1.95) | |||
| | 1.44 | 1.51 | 1 | 1 |
| (1.03–2.03) | (1.06–2.16) | |||
| | 1.38 | 0.95 | 0.53 | 0.61 |
| (0.86–2.20) | (0.51–1.75) | (0.29–0.96) | (0.29–1.28) | |
| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| | 0.69 | 0.67 | 1.33 | 1.09 |
| (0.48–0.98) | (0.42–1.07) | (0.89–2.00) | (0.65–1.83) | |
| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
OR: Odds ratio. CI: Confidence interval. Adjusted ORa: odds ratio adjusted by logistic regression for child's sex, child's nutritional status, maternal educational level, and maternal misperception of her own nutritional status. Adjusted ORb: odds ratio adjusted by logistic regression for child's sex, child's nutritional status, maternal age, maternal educational level, and maternal misperception of her own nutritional status. c: The variable maternal age was not tested for the presence of underestimation because it had p > 0.20 in bivariate analyses.