| Literature DB >> 30845902 |
Michèle Ramsay1,2, Nigel J Crowther3, Godfred Agongo1,4, Stuart A Ali1, Gershim Asiki5, Romuald P Boua1,2,6, F Xavier Gómez-Olivé7, Kathleen Kahn7,8,9, Christopher Khayeka-Wandabwa5, Felistas Mashinya10, Lisa Micklesfield11, Freedom Mukomana1, Engelbert A Nonterah4, Cassandra Soo1,2, Hermann Sorgho6, Alisha N Wade7, Ryan G Wagner7, Marianne Alberts10, Scott Hazelhurst1,12, Catherine Kyobutungi5, Shane A Norris11, Abraham R Oduro4, Osman Sankoh8,9,13,14, Halidou Tinto6, Stephen Tollman7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: African populations are characterised by diversity at many levels including: demographic history, genetic ancestry, language, wealth, socio-political landscape, culture and behaviour. Several of these have a profound impact on body fat mass. Obesity, a key risk factor for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, in the wake of the epidemiological and health transitions across the continent, requires detailed analysis together with other major risk factors.Entities:
Keywords: BMI; CMD; SSA; obesity; regional variation; sex-specific variation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30845902 PMCID: PMC6407581 DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2018.1556561
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Figure 1.Median BMI (kg/m2) values (box and whisker plots showing the median, interquartile ranges and outliers) across the six AWI-Gen study sites stratified by sex. From left to right are the Centres from South Africa (Agincourt (AGT); Dikgale (DKG); and Soweto (SWT)), East Africa (Nairobi in Kenya (NBI)); and West Africa (Nanoro, Burkina Faso (NNR) and Navrongo, Ghana (NVR)).
Comparison of BMI measurements by sex in the six AWI-Gen Centres (40–60 years of age).
| N | BMI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre | Country | Urbanicity | Total | Women | Men | Women | Men |
| Soweto | South Africa | Urban | 2030 | 1005 | 1025 | 32.9 [28.5, 37.6] | 24.2 [20.6, 28.5]*** |
| Agincourt | South Africa | Semi-rural | 1465 | 573 | 892 | 28.6 [24.2, 33.2] | 23.0 [20.3, 26.6]*** |
| Dikgale | South Africa | Semi-rural | 1167 | 356 | 811 | 30.1 [25.2, 35.9] | 20.6 [18.9, 24.1]*** |
| Nairobi | Kenya | Urban | 1942 | 886 | 1056 | 26.9 [23.0, 31.7] | 22.1 [19.9, 24.9]*** |
| Nanoro | Burkina Faso | Rural | 2084 | 1045 | 1039 | 19.7 [18.1, 21.6] | 21.1 [19.2, 23.4]*** |
| Navrongo | Ghana | Rural | 2014 | 923 | 1091 | 21.4 [19.6, 23.9] | 20.6 [19.0, 22.3]*** |
Data given as median [interquartile range]; Women vs. Men ***p < 0.0001 (Mann-Whitney U test).
Figure 2.Distribution of obesity categories (obese, overweight, lean (normal) and underweight) across the six AWI-Gen data collection sites, stratified by sex. From left to right are the centres from South Africa (Agincourt (AGT); Dikgale (DKG); and Soweto (SWT)), East Africa (Nairobi in Kenya (NBI)); and West Africa (Nanoro, Burkina Faso (NNR) and Navrongo, Ghana (NVR)). The bars represent the number of individuals recruited at each Centre.
Comparison of the prevalence of BMI categories between men and women at each AWI-Gen Centre.
| Centre | Sex | Underweight (%) | Lean (%) | Overweight (%) | Obese (%) | P-value* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soweto | Women | 0.6 | 11.5 | 21.2 | 66.6 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 10.2 | 44.6 | 27.6 | 17.5 | ||
| Agincourt | Women | 2.1 | 27.5 | 28.0 | 42.3 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 10.0 | 55.2 | 22.9 | 11.8 | ||
| Dikgale | Women | 3.0 | 20.5 | 25.1 | 51.4 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 19.7 | 59.5 | 18.0 | 2.8 | ||
| Nairobi | Women | 3.9 | 33.1 | 30.9 | 32.1 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 11.7 | 63.5 | 19.6 | 5.1 | ||
| Nanoro | Women | 31.0 | 62.5 | 5.2 | 1.3 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 17.3 | 68.6 | 11.9 | 2.2 | ||
| Navrongo | Women | 13.1 | 68.5 | 14.2 | 4.2 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 18.3 | 74.5 | 6.0 | 1.2 |
*p-values from a χ2 2 × 4 contingency table.
Sex-stratified hierarchical models showing demographic, socio-economic, behavioural and biological factors associated with BMI across six African study sites.
| Centre (Ref.) | Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Significant associations | R2 | Significant associations | |
| Soweto [ | 0.26 | Marital status, SES, Smoking (-), Physical activity (-), HIV (-) | 0.14 | Tswana Ethnicity (-), Education (-), Smoking (-), HIV status (-) |
| Agincourt [ | Marital status, SES, Smoking (-) | Marital status, Education, Smoking (-), Alcohol (-), Sugar-sweetened beverages, HIV (-) | ||
| Dikgale [ | 0.25 | Marital status, SES, Smoking (-), Alcohol (-), HIV (-) | 0.12 | Age (-), SES, Smoking (-), Sleep duration (-), HIV (-) |
| Nairobi [ | 0.20 | SES, Smoking (-), Bread, HIV (-), TB (-) | 0.19 | Smoking (-), Alcohol, Kikuyu ethnicity, HIV (-), TB (-) |
| Nanoro [ | 0.26 | Age (-), Marital status, Education, SES, Alcohol (-), Smoking (-), Fruit and vegetables | 0.16 | Education, Smokeless tobacco (-), Bread |
| Navrongo [ | 0.20 | Age (-), Nankana ethnicity (-), Education, SES, Smoking (-), Alcohol (-), Sedentary time, Sleep duration (-), Pesticide use | 0.19 | Age (-), Nankana ethnicity (-), Education, SES, Smokeless tobacco (-), Sleep duration (-) |
Directionality of associations is positive unless stated otherwise. Marital status: Being married or co-habiting is associated with higher BMI. Details for each study site are provided in the Special Issue [7–12].