| Literature DB >> 29949902 |
Datis Khajeheian1, Amir Mohammad Colabi2, Nordiana Binti Ahmad Kharman Shah3, Che Wan Jasimah Bt Wan Mohamed Radzi4, Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi5.
Abstract
Through public health studies, specifically on child obesity modeling, research scholars have been attempting to identify the factors affecting obesity using suitable statistical techniques. In recent years, regression, structural equation modeling (SEM) and partial least squares (PLS) regression have been the most widely employed statistical modeling techniques in public health studies. The main objective of this study to apply the Taguchi method to introduce a new pattern rather than a model for analyzing the body mass index (BMI) of children as a representative of childhood obesity levels mainly related to social media use. The data analysis includes two main parts. The first part entails selecting significant indicators for the proposed framework by applying SEM for primary and high school students separately. The second part introduces the Taguchi method as a realistic and reliable approach to exploring which combination of significant variables leads to high obesity levels in children. AMOS software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was applied in the first part of data analysis and MINITAB software (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA) was utilized for the Taguchi experimental analysis (second data analysis part). This study will help research scholars view the data and a pattern rather than a model, as a combination of different factor levels for target factor optimization.Entities:
Keywords: childhood obesity modeling; complex analysis; overweight; public health study
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29949902 PMCID: PMC6069160 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15071343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Taguchi method analysis process [51].
BMI categories for children.
| BMI Value | Category |
|---|---|
| <18.5 | Underweight |
| 18.5–22.9 | Normal Range |
| 23.0–24.9 | At Risk |
| 25.0–29.9 | Moderately Obese |
| ≥30.0 | Severely Obese |
Body mass index (BMI) distribution.
| Category | Primary School Number (%) | High School Number (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Underweight | 115 (12%) | 92 (15.1%) |
| Normal Range | 695 (72.6%) | 402 (65.8%) |
| At Risk (Overweight) | 55 (5.7%) | 50 (8.1%) |
| Moderately Obese (Overweight) | 51 (5.3%) | 38 (6.2%) |
| Severely Obese (Overweight) | 42 (4.4%) | 29 (4.8%) |
Distributions of parents’ characteristics (primary school and high school).
| Father | Primary School (Number; %) | High School (Number; %) | Mother | Primary School (Number; %) | High School (Number; %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of Parents | |||||
| Below 31 years old | 26 (2.7%) | 2 (0.3%) | Below 31 years old | 59 (6.2%) | 4 (0.7%) |
| 31–40 years old | 248 (25.9%) | 55 (9%) | 31–40 years old | 255 (26.6%) | 225 (36.8%) |
| 41–50 years old | 502 (52.4%) | 304 (49.8%) | 41–50 years old | 363 (37.9%) | 242 (39.6%) |
| 51–60 years old | 122 (12.7%) | 221 (36.2%) | 51–60 years old | 248 (25.9%) | 132 (21.6%) |
| Over 60 years old | 60 (6.3%) | 29 (4.7%) | Over 60 years old | 33 (3.4%) | 8 (1.3%) |
| Job Experience of Parents | |||||
| Less than 5 years | 25 (2.6%) | 7 (1.2%) | Less than 5 years | 9 (0.9%) | 12 (2%) |
| 5–10 years | 126 (13.1%) | 136 (22.2%) | 5–10 years | 269 (28.1%) | 263 (43%) |
| 11–15 years | 498 (52%) | 402 (46.7%) | 11–15 years | 402 (42%) | 189 (30.9%) |
| 16–20 years | 222 (23.2%) | 252 (24.7%) | 16–20 years | 252 (26.3%) | 116 (19%) |
| More than 20 years | 87 (9.1%) | 26 (5.2%) | More than 20 years | 26 (2.7%) | 31 (5.1%) |
| Income of Parents | |||||
| Less than 2MT per month | 20 (2.1%) | 7 (1.1%) | Less than 2MT per month | 102 (10.6%) | 75 (12.3%) |
| 2MT–3MT per month | 76 (7.9%) | 48 (7.9%) | 2MT–3MT per month | 558 (58.2%) | 235 (38.5%) |
| 3MT–4MT per month | 333 (34.8%) | 268 (43.9%) | 3MT–4MT per month | 151 (15.8%) | 109 (17.8%) |
| 4MT–5MT per month | 285 (29.7%) | 252 (41.2%) | 4MT–5MT per month | 108 (11.3%) | 170 (27.8%) |
| More than 5MT per month | 244 (25.5%) | 36 (5.9%) | More than 5MT per month | 39 (4.1%) | 22 (3.6%) |
| Education Level of Parents | |||||
| Less than high school | 44 (4.6%) | 11 (1.8%) | Less than high school | 25 (2.6%) | 18 (2.9%) |
| High School | 48 (5.0%) | 22 (3.6%) | High School | 152 (15.9%) | 85 (13.9%) |
| Diploma | 550 (57.4%) | 336 (55%) | Diploma | 335 (35%) | 295 (48.3%) |
| Bachelor | 258 (26.9%) | 222 (36.3%) | Bachelor | 351 (36.6%) | 201 (32.9%) |
| Master or PhD | 58 (6.1%) | 20 (3.3%) | Master or PhD | 95 (9.9%) | 12 (2%) |
Figure 2Distribution of children’s social media use among primary and high school students.
Figure 3Distribution of children’s physical activity among primary and high school students.
Figure 4Distribution of children’s sleep amount among primary and high school students.
Figure 5SEM research model.
Figure 6Cronbach’s alpha outputs.
Factor loading analysis of the research latent variables.
| Parameter Description | Factor Loading Primary School | Factor Loading High School |
|---|---|---|
| Family Socio-Economic | ||
| Age (Father) | 0.56 | 0.49 |
| Age (Mother) | 0.61 | 0.59 |
| Education (Father) | 0.52 | 0.71 |
| Education (Mother) | 0.81 | 0.77 |
| Income (Father) | 0.92 | 0.88 |
| Income (Mother) | 0.73 | 0.72 |
| Job Experience (Father) | 0.82 | 0.83 |
| Job Experience (Mother) | 0.74 | 0.76 |
| Parental Feeding Behavior | ||
| Rewarding | 0.71 | 0.65 |
| Restricting | 0.78 | 0.52 |
| Pressuring | 0.79 | 0.76 |
| Modeling | 0.66 | 0.49 |
| Controlling | 0.81 | 0.88 |
| Monitoring | 0.76 | 0.79 |
| Children Unhealthy Food Intake | ||
| Sweets | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| Chips | 0.79 | 0.86 |
| Soft Drinks | 0.74 | 0.76 |
| Fast Food | 0.82 | 0.79 |
| Children healthy Food Intake | ||
| Vegetables | 0.75 | 0.83 |
| Fruits | 0.81 | 0.72 |
| Whole Grains | 0.88 | 0.73 |
Figure 7AVE analysis outputs.
Normality test.
| Indicators | Primary School | High School | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kurtosis | Skew | Kurtosis | Skew | |
| Age (Father) | Deleted from the model | Deleted from the model | ||
| Age (Mother) | Deleted from the model | Deleted from the model | ||
| Education (Father) | Deleted from the model | 3.65 | 1.76 | |
| Education (Mother) | 1.25 | 0.98 | 2.69 | 0.58 |
| Income (Father) | –2.36 | –0.55 | 1.54 | 0.98 |
| Income (Mother) | 1.52 | 1.06 | 2.11 | 1.19 |
| Job Experience (Father) | 5.25 | 1.66 | 2.58 | 1.03 |
| Job Experience (Mother) | 3.61 | 1.19 | –0.95 | –0.11 |
| Rewarding | –3.84 | –1.18 | Deleted from the model | |
| Restricting | 0.44 | 0.85 | Deleted from the model | |
| Pressuring | 2.41 | 1.09 | 1.09 | 0.26 |
| Modeling | 4.59 | 1.55 | Deleted from the model | |
| Controlling | –3.81 | –1.13 | 2.44 | 1.01 |
| Monitoring | 2.99 | 1.49 | 1.36 | 0.55 |
| Sweets | 1.91 | 1.02 | 1.67 | 1.47 |
| Chips | 3.17 | 1.27 | –0.28 | –1.03 |
| Soft Drinks | 2.77 | 1.92 | –0.18 | –0.08 |
| Fast Food | 3.55 | 1.83 | 2.33 | 0.99 |
| Vegetables | 2.93 | 1.73 | –3.33 | –0.95 |
| Fruits | 4.76 | 1.44 | 2.01 | 1.88 |
| Whole Grains | –3.93 | –1.79 | 3.57 | 1.82 |
| Children’s Social Media Use | 2.68 | 1.76 | –3.22 | –1.31 |
| Children’s Physical Activity | 2.56 | 1.24 | 3.09 | 0.27 |
| Children’s Sleep Amount | 3.29 | 1.66 | –1.94 | –1.08 |
Figure 8Model fit analysis.
Figure 9Full measurement model.
Figure 10Structural primary and high school models.
SEM analysis outputs for primary and high school students.
| Independent Variables | Beta | z-Value | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary School | ||||
| Family Socio-Economic Status | 0.36 | 3.90 | <0.01 | (0.29, 0.42) |
| Family Feeding Behavior | 0.16 | 1.73 | 0.08 | (0.09, 0.21) |
| Children’s Healthy Food Intake | –0.12 | 1.30 | 0.12 | (–0.18, 0.01) |
| Children’s Unhealthy Food Intake | 0.45 | 4.87 | <0.01 | (0.33, 0.61) |
| Children’s Social Media Use | 0.51 | 5.52 | <0.01 | (0.44, 0.58) |
| Children’s Physical Activity | –0.33 | 3.57 | <0.01 | (–0.41, –0.22) |
| Children’s Sleep Amount | 0.23 | 2.49 | 0.02 | (0.14, 0.31) |
| High School | ||||
| Family Socio-Economic Status | 0.56 | 6.06 | <0.01 | (0.43, 0.70) |
| Family Feeding Behavior | 0.09 | 0.97 | 0.56 | (–0.07, 0.18) |
| Children’s Healthy Food Intake | –0.14 | 1.52 | 0.11 | (–0.21, –0.02) |
| Children’s Unhealthy Food Intake | 0.40 | 4.33 | <0.01 | (0.31, 0.46) |
| Children’s Social Media Use | 0.68 | 7.36 | <0.01 | (0.59, 0.77) |
| Children’s Physical Activity | –0.48 | 5.20 | <0.01 | (–0.52, –0.39) |
| Children’s Sleep Amount | 0.14 | 1.52 | 0.13 | (0.06, 0.19) |
Taguchi method coding.
| Level | Coding | Level | Coding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Socio-Economic Status | Children’s Social Media Use | ||
| Very Low | Code “1” | Less than 1 h per day | Code “1” |
| Low | Code “2” | 1–2 h per day | Code “2” |
| Moderate | Code “3” | 2–3 h per day | Code “3” |
| High | Code “4” | 3–4 h per day | Code “4” |
| Very High | Code “5” | More than 4 h per day | Code “5” |
| Children’s Unhealthy Food Intake | Children’s Physical Activity | ||
| Never | Code “1” | None | Code “1” |
| Rarely | Code “2” | 1–2 times per week | Code “2” |
| Sometimes | Code “3” | 3–4 times per week | Code “3” |
| Mostly | Code “4” | 5–6 times per week | Code “4” |
| Always | Code “5” | Every day | Code “5” |
| Children’s Sleep Amount | |||
| Less than 6 h per day | Code “1” | ||
| 6–7 h per day | Code “2” | ||
| 7–8 h per day | Code “3” | ||
| 8–9 h per day | Code “4” | ||
| More than 9 h per day | Code “5” | ||
Figure 11Taguchi output for the primary school obesity model with MINITAB software.
Figure 12Taguchi output for the high school obesity model with MINITAB software.