| Literature DB >> 29145423 |
Alessandra Prioreschi1, Stephanie V Wrottesley1, Emmanuel Cohen1, Ankita Reddy1, Rihlat Said-Mohamed1, Rhian Twine2, Stephen M Tollman2,3,4, Kathleen Kahn2,3,4, David B Dunger1,5, Shane A Norris1.
Abstract
The persistence of food insecurity, malnutrition, increasing adiposity, and decreasing physical activity, heightens the need to understand relationships between body image satisfaction, eating attitudes, BMI and physical activity levels in South Africa. Females aged 18-23 years were recruited from rural (n = 509) and urban (n = 510) settings. Body image satisfaction was measured using Stunkard's silhouettes, and the 26-item Eating Attitudes questionnaire (EAT-26) was used to evaluate participants' risk of disordered eating. Minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was assessed using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Significant linear correlates were included in a series of regressions run separately for urban and rural participants. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the relationships between variables. Urban females were more likely to be overweight and obese than rural females (p = 0.02), and had a greater desire to be thinner (p = 0.02). In both groups, being overweight or obese was positively associated with a desire to be thinner (p<0.01), and negatively associated with a desire to be fatter (p<0.01). Having a disordered eating attitude was associated with body image dissatisfaction in the urban group (β = 1.27, p<0.01, CI: 0.38; 2.16), but only with a desire to be fatter in the rural group (β = 0.63, p = 0.04, CI: 0.03; 1.23). In the SEM model, body image dissatisfaction was associated with disordered eating (β = 0.63), as well as higher MVPA participation (p<0.01). These factors were directly associated with a decreased risk of disordered eating attitude, and with a decreased desire to be thinner. Findings indicate a shift in both settings towards more Westernised ideals. Physical activity may provide a means to promote a healthy body image, while reducing the risk of disordered eating. Given the high prevalence of overweight and obesity in both rural and urban women, this study provides insights for future interventions aimed at decreasing adiposity in a healthy way.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29145423 PMCID: PMC5690598 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the urban and rural sample.
| Rural (n = 476) | Urban (n = 492) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) or % | Mean (SD) or % | p-value | |
| 21 (1.3) | 23 (0.5) | <0.01 | |
| 161.5 (6.7) | 159.9 (6.2) | <0.01 | |
| 64.6 (14.0) | 64.7 (15.6) | 0.91 | |
| 5.6 (1.9) | 8.8 (2.4) | <0.01 | |
| 24.8 (5.2) | 25.3 (5.9) | 0.14 | |
| 0.02 | |||
| 5 | 7 | ||
| 56 | 47 | ||
| 23 | 29 | ||
| 16 | 17 | ||
| 0.37 (1.74) | 0.64 (1.69) | 0.02 | |
| 13.68 (7.87) | 10.70 (8.55) | <0.01 | |
| 23 | 12 | <0.01 | |
| <0.01 | |||
| 65 | 55 | ||
| 35 | 45 | ||
| <0.01 | |||
| 20 | 50 | ||
| 37 | 17 | ||
| 43 | 33 | ||
| <0.01 | |||
| 97 | 77 | ||
| 3 | 23 | ||
| <0.01 | |||
| 26 | 54 | ||
| 74 | 47 |
Multinomial regression showing the predictors of FID category in the urban and rural groups.
| FID category | Urban Group | Rural Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B coefficient | P value | 95% CI | B coefficient | P value | 95% CI | |
| 0.08 | 0.76 | -0.47; 0.65 | 0.29 | 0.68 | -1.10; 1.69 | |
| -0.93 | 0.25 | -2.51; 0.65 | -14.68 | 0.98 | -1380.32; 1350.97 | |
| 1.92 | <0.01 | 1.43; 2.40 | 1.78 | <0.01 | 1.28; 2.29 | |
| 1.27 | <0.01 | 0.38; 2.16 | 0.03 | 0.92 | -0.58; 0.64 | |
| 0.23 | 0.50 | -0.44; 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.31 | -0.70; 2.20 | |
| 1.36 | <0.01 | 0.48; 2.24 | 0.45 | 0.34 | -0.48; 1.39 | |
| -1.92 | <0.01 | -2.92; -0.93 | -1.21 | 0.01 | -1.94; -0.48 | |
| 1.04 | 0.06 | -0.06; 2.14 | 0.63 | 0.04 | 0.03; 1.23 | |
* p<0.05
Regression showing the predictors of EAT-26 score in the urban and rural groups.
| Eat score | Urban Group | Rural Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B coefficient | P value | 95% CI | B coefficient | P value | 95% CI | |
| 0.10 | 0.92 | -1.70; 1.89 | 3.67 | 0.11 | -0.80; 8.14 | |
| 1.92 | 0.22 | -1.16; 5.00 | 0.84 | 0.64 | -2.65; 4.34 | |
| 0.49 | 0.60 | -1.36; 2.34 | 0.52 | 0.57 | -1.26; 2.30 | |
| 4.47 | <0.01 | 2.57; 6.37 | 0.93 | 0.34 | -0.96; 2.82 | |
| 3.03 | <0.01 | 0.78; 5.29 | 1.29 | 0.19 | -0.66; 3.23 | |
* p<0.05
Percentage distribution of body sillhouette attributes for urban and rural females.
| Silhouettes | Urban | Rural | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best | <0.01 | ||
| 8 | 16 | ||
| 86 | 74 | ||
| 6 | 6 | ||
| 0 | 4 | ||
| Worst | <0.01 | ||
| 26 | 23 | ||
| 0 | 5 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 73 | 70 | ||
| Clumsy | <0.01 | ||
| 24 | 18 | ||
| 3 | 7 | ||
| 6 | 10 | ||
| 67 | 65 | ||
| Most respect | <0.01 | ||
| 12 | 12 | ||
| 72 | 49 | ||
| 11 | 23 | ||
| 5 | 16 | ||
| Least respect | <0.01 | ||
| 41 | 58 | ||
| 3 | 11 | ||
| 6 | 11 | ||
| 50 | 20 | ||
| Strongest | <0.01 | ||
| 4 | 9 | ||
| 48 | 27 | ||
| 24 | 23 | ||
| 24 | 41 | ||
| Weakest | <0.01 | ||
| 87 | 79 | ||
| 1 | 5 | ||
| 2 | 5 | ||
| 10 | 11 | ||
| Happiest | <0.01 | ||
| 8 | 13 | ||
| 74 | 64 | ||
| 9 | 16 | ||
| 9 | 7 | ||
| Unhappy | <0.01 | ||
| 27 | 35 | ||
| 2 | 10 | ||
| 4 | 8 | ||
| 67 | 47 | ||
Results of the SEM model for both sites, pooled.
| Exposure: | Outcome: | Direct effects(95% CI) | Indirect effects (95% CI) | Total effects(95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FID (desire to be thinner) | ||||
| FID (desire to be thinner) | -0.001 (-0.000;0.000) | |||
| BMI | -0.000 (-0.000;0.000) | -0.000 (-0.000;0.000) | ||
| EAT (increased risk) | ||||
| EAT (increased risk) | ||||
| MVPA | ||||
| MVPA | 6.570 (-5.627;18.811) | -2.199 (-7.761;3.363) | 4.371 (-4.148;12.889) |
SRMR = 0.043, CFI = 0.945, chi2 = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.061
* p<0.05
Fig 1SEM model for the pooled sample.