The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents.

Weight status and self-weight perception are related to social relationship issues. Studies have suggested links between non-normal weight status or weight perception and youths having fewer confidants, but these relationships are unclear and remain to be studied. This preliminary cross-sectional study examined the effects of weight status and weight perception on the number of confidants in adolescents. Self-report data from 15,279 grade 7-12 students (54.2% boys) were analyzed. The number of confidants (0-3 or ≥ 4) was examined, according to five weight status categories (underweight, low-normal weight, mid-normal weight (reference), high-normal weight, overweight, with Body Mass Index corresponding to ≤ 18.5, ≤ 20.0, ≤ 22.5, ≤ 25.0 and > 25.0 in adults, respectively), and five weight perception categories (too thin, a bit thin, good (reference), a bit fat, too fat). Boys and girls who were overweight and those who perceived themselves to be too fat were significantly more likely to have few confidants. High-normal weight in girls and self-perception of being a bit fat in boys were also associated with having few confidants. In boys, underweight and self-perception of being too thin were additionally associated with having few confidants. Adolescents with non-normal weight status or weight perception may have fewer confidants and require more social support.

Introduction

Adolescence is a sensitive developmental period in which youths acquire more sophistication in social interactions and experience changes in social expectations [1]. During adolescence, the prevalence of mental health problems increases sharply [2]. Among these problems are depressive disorders, self-harm, and anxiety disorders, which are some of the top ten leading causes of Disability-Adjusted Life Years [3] lost by adolescents [4]. One factor that protects adolescents from mental health problems is having access to confidants; people to whom these adolescents can talk about their problems. Adolescents who have few or no confidants are more likely to have mental health problems such as higher levels of depressive symptoms [5-7]. It has been reported that having 3 or fewer confidants is associated with the development of mental health issues [8].

Overweight and obese adolescents often face social disadvantages in multiple domains of living, including interpersonal relationships, as a result of weight stigmatization [9]. Weight stigma portrays overweight and obese individuals with negative characteristics and beliefs, such as lazy, stupid, less popular and lacking in friends [9]. Some evidence suggests that during adolescence, being overweight/obese, which is highly stigmatized in our society, may compromise their access to confidants. Overweight/obese adolescents may have smaller social network sizes compared with non-overweight/obese peers. For example, being overweight/obese during adolescence predicts social marginalization [10], including difficulty in making new friends [11,12]. Overweight/obese adolescents are also less frequently nominated by their classmates as friends [11,13,14]. In addition, overweight/obese adolescents often have difficulty perceiving their best friends as confidants [15] or have relationship difficulties with close friends [12]. Overweight adolescents often report low quality of family interactions [16], such as having difficulties in relationships with their parents [12], which may also contribute to their lack of confiding relationships.

On the other hand, some studies have observed that being underweight can be related to having less access to confidants. For example, underweight adolescents are more likely to have problems in social behavior such as getting along with friends [17]. Underweight adolescents also report a low frequency of family interactions, including a low frequency of meals eaten together with family [18]. Furthermore, being underweight in boys has also been significantly associated with having difficulty in discussing personal issues with parents [18]. A meta-analysis which examined adults found that Body Mass Index (BMI) was significantly positively associated with extraversion in males [19].

It is possible that weight perception of self (WP) may also affect confiding relationships in adolescents, regardless of their weight status (WS). A systematic review observed that negative body image (being both too thin and too fat) was often associated with lower levels of extraversion in people of all ages [20]. Previous studies have also observed that adolescents who perceive themselves as either being thin or fat report more social adaptation problems (e.g. problems becoming accustomed to school life) [17,21] and impairment in social functioning (e.g. trouble getting along with peers) [22]. In addition, a study observed that WP was discordant with WS in a quarter of adolescents [23]. Furthermore, the effect of WP may not be in accordance with the effect of the corresponding WS. For example, a perception of being either thin or fat might not affect social relationships as negatively as actually being underweight or overweight might, given that girls may be more likely to become friends with other girls who have similar weight concerns [24].

According to these findings, WS and WP might be associated with the number of confiding relationships in adolescents; these relationships, however, remain to be investigated. The present study examines whether junior and senior high school students with non-normal WS and WP have fewer confidants than their counterparts with normal WS and WP, using a self-report questionnaire.

Materials and methods

Populations and procedures

A school-based cross-sectional survey targeting junior and senior high school students (Grades 7–12) was conducted from 2006 to 2009 in Japan. The principal investigators approached the school principals of all public junior and senior high schools in Kochi prefecture (population: 780,000), and all public junior high schools in Tsu City (population: 290,000) in Mie prefecture. School principals were told that participation in the survey was voluntary. The principals then consulted with the teachers. The parents and guardians received a letter from the principal investigators that asked them to notify the school if they withheld consent for their child’s participation in the present research. Among the 138 public junior and 36 public senior high schools, 45 junior high and 28 senior high schools participated in this study. Overall, 19,436 students were asked to participate in the self-reported survey. Of these, 798 were absent on the days of the survey and 388 declined to participate. Of the 18,250 students who agreed to participate, 2,234 students with missing data for height (n = 839) or weight (n = 2,136) were excluded. Furthermore, data from 175 students were excluded for not meeting a BMI value of 12–40 (n = 125) or not being within height threshold of 140–200 cm (n = 50) (i.e. invalid responses). Also, data from 416 students were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete answers to questions for WP (n = 265) or for the number of confidants (n = 162). In the end, data from 15,279 (83.7%; mean age = 15.3 ± 1.7; 54.2% boys) students were analyzed.

On the survey days, the teachers distributed to the students the survey questionnaire and an envelope (in which to seal the completed questionnaire before handing it back to the teachers). The students were told that participation in the study was anonymous and voluntary, and that answers would be kept confidential. Research staff collected the sealed questionnaires at each school. The study was conducted in accordance with Japan’s Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Research. The data collection was approved by the ethics committees of the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Psychiatry (approval number: 20–9), the Mie University School of Medicine (approval number: 603), and Kochi Medical School at Kochi University (approval number: 20–57).

Measurements

The questionnaire items and response options used in the present study are shown in S1 Table, including the measurement of independent and dependent variables and covariates in the original language and English. Details of the coding for each variable are described in the following sub-sections.

Weight status and weight perception

Self-reported height and weight values were used to calculate BMI (kg/m2). BMI values were initially split into four WS categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese), using BMI cut-off values that are equivalent to adult BMI values of 18.5, 25.0, and 30.0, based on age- and sex-specific cut-off values for underweightedness [25] and overweightedness and obesity [26] in adolescents. The majority of subjects fell in the normal weight category. Thus, we further divided the normal weight category into low-normal weight, mid-normal weight, and high-normal weight using cut-off points which are comparable to the BMI values of 20.0 and 22.5 for adults [27-29]. Finally, the number of divisions for WS was reduced from 6 to 5 groups by merging the obesity group into the overweight group, since the number of obese subjects was small (n = 224 in boys; n = 67 in girls). In the end, the five WS categories were defined, with cut-off values adjusted for age and sex corresponding to the following equivalent BMIs in adults: Underweight: BMI < 18.5; Low-normal weight: 18.5 ≤ BMI < 20.0; Mid-normal weight: 20.0 ≤ BMI < 22.5; High-normal weight: 22.5 ≤ BMI < 25.0; Overweight: BMI ≥ 25.0.

WP was measured using the following one-item question: “What do you think of your current body weight?” The students were given a five-point Likert scale with responses defined as follows: 1. “Too fat”; 2. “A bit fat”; 3. “Good”; 4. “A bit thin”; and 5. “Too thin”. The students responded to the question by circling one of the given choices. In the analyses, each answer was considered as one category.

Number of confidants

The number of confidants was assessed with the following question, “How many people are there for you to confide in about your problems/concerns?”, with five possible answers: 1. “None”; 2. “One”; 3. “Two”; 4. “Three”; 5. “Four or more”. The students responded to the question by circling one of the given choices. Adolescents with 3 or fewer confidants were considered as having few confidants. A dichotomous variable was then created by combining answers of 1 to 4 into the “0–3 (Few) confidants” group, and putting answers of 5 in the “≥ 4 (More) confidants” group.

Covariates

Earlier studies found that non-normal WS significantly increases the risk of being bullied [30-32]. In addition, those who have past experience of being bullied often report low levels of support from friends [33], which may imply fewer confidants of the victims of bullying. Also, having few confidants has been reported to be significantly associated with depression and/or anxiety [5-7]. Our study entered these variables into the final analysis as confounders so that the risk of having few confidants in adolescents with non-normal WS/WP is examined regardless of the presence/absence of experience of being bullied and the current status of mental health. Experience of being bullied (yes or no) was assessed by asking the students, “Have you been bullied within the past year?” Depression/anxiety symptoms were measured using the Japanese version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The validity of GHQ-12 in adolescents has been previously confirmed [34]. In addition, the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of GHQ-12 has been established in people of all ages [35]. While each item of GHQ-12 was rated on a four-point Likert scale, the present study applied a bimodal scoring method (0-0-1-1); the Cronbach’s alpha using this scoring method was 0.84 in the present sample. A score of 4 or higher in the possible score range of 0 to 12 is indicative of the risk of depression/anxiety in Japanese adults and adolescents [36]. These scores were entered as a dichotomous variable which were coded to 0 (scores from 0–3) and 1 (4–12) in the analyses.

Statistical analysis

The associations of WS or WP with the number of confidants were tested using binary logistic regression. The number of confidants was specified as the dependent variable (Few: 0–3, More: ≥ 4), while either WS or WP was included as an independent variable. Analyses were adjusted for age, experience of being bullied (0 or 1) and GHQ-12 score (0 or 1). Mid-normal weight or perceiving oneself as good was chosen as the reference category in the analyses. All analyses were stratified by sex. In the adjusted analyses, 20 boys and 32 girls were excluded due to missing data about the experience of being bullied; a total of 8,088 boys and 7,139 girls were analyzed. Since age was a continuous variable, the present study conducted the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, a goodness of fit test for logistic regression, to assess how well the data fits the logistic regression models. It gave p-values of 0.43 and 0.75 for boys and girls respectively, indicating no evidence of poor fit. Testing the dichotomous variables gave p-value of 1. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0 for Microsoft Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

Descriptive statistics

The largest proportion of students (boys: 41.7%, girls: 40.1%) fell into the mid-normal weight group (Table 1). The prevalence of being underweight was 8.7% in boys and 12.7% in girls, while being overweight was 11.4% in boys and 6.6% in girls. WP for boys had a normal distribution, while the distribution of girls was skewed toward the perception of being fat. The distributions of WS, WP, and the number of confidants did not differ substantially across school level (Junior high / Senior high); in both boys and girls, the same category always showed the largest proportion within each variable. The distributions of WS, WP, and the number of confidants, stratified by school level are shown in S1–S4 Tables. As shown in Table 2, the distribution of WP in boys was relatively similar to the distribution for WS. However, a large proportion of girls who were underweight or normal weight reported perceiving themselves as fat. In both boys and girls, the highest prevalence of having 3 or fewer confidants was observed in overweight students.

Table 1

Weight status, weight perception, the number of confidants, experience of being bullied, and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 scores in boys and girls.

	Boys	Girls
N	8,108	7,171
Age (years), mean ± SD	15.3 ± 1.7	15.3 ± 1.7
BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD	20.2 ± 3.2	19.9 ± 2.7
Weight status, n (%)
Underweight	716 (8.8)	922 (12.9)
Low-normal weight	1,610 (19.9)	1,765 (24.6)
Mid-normal weight	3,402 (42.0)	2,882 (40.2)
High-normal weight	1,456 (18.0)	1,131 (15.8)
Overweight	699 (8.6)	404 (5.6)
Obese	225 (2.8)	67 (0.9)
Weight perception, n (%)
Too thin	589 (7.3)	87 (1.2)
A bit thin	1,610 (19.9)	328 (4.6)
Good	3,291 (40.6)	1,732 (24.2)
A bit fat	1,910 (23.6)	3,328 (46.4)
Too fat	708 (8.7)	1,696 (23.7)
Number of confidant(s)a, n (%)
None	1,844 (22.7)	777 (10.8)
1	744 (9.2)	860 (12.0)
2	1,257 (15.5)	1,420 (19.8)
3	822 (10.1)	1,136 (15.8)
≥ 4	3,441 (42.4)	2,978 (41.5)
Experience of being bullied (past 1 year), n (%)
(+)	621 (7.7)	505 (7.0)
GHQ-12 score, n (%)
≥ 4	2,699 (33.3)	3,936 (54.9)

n, number of subjects; SD, standard deviation.

a How many people are there for you to confide in about your concerns/problems?

Table 2

Weight perception and the number of confidants according to weight status, in boys and girls, n (%).

	Underweight	Low-normal weight	Mid-normal weight	High-normal weight	Overweight
	Boys (N = 8,108)
Weight perception
Too thin	239 (33.4)	220 (13.7)	115 (3.4)	11 (0.8)	4 (0.4)
A bit thin	262 (36.6)	586 (36.4)	673 (19.8)	78 (5.4)	11 (1.2)
Good	184 (25.7)	648 (40.2)	1,773 (52.1)	590 (40.5)	96 (10.4)
A bit fat	24 (3.4)	132 (8.2)	759 (22.3)	636 (43.7)	359 (38.9)
Too fat	7 (1.0)	24 (1.5)	82 (2.4)	141 (9.7)	454 (49.1)
Number of confidantsa
0–3	432 (60.3)	941 (58.4)	1,886 (55.4)	843 (57.9)	565 (61.1)
≥ 4	284 (39.7)	669 (41.6)	1,516 (44.6)	613 (42.1)	359 (38.9)
	Girls (N = 7,171)
Weight perception
Too thin	68 (7.4)	14 (0.8)	4 (0.1)	1 (0.1)	0 (0.0)
A bit thin	200 (21.7)	105 (5.9)	22 (0.8)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.2)
Good	408 (44.3)	702 (39.8)	557 (19.3)	58 (5.1)	7 (1.5)
A bit fat	214 (23.2)	794 (45.0)	1,681 (58.3)	547 (48.4)	92 (19.5)
Too fat	32 (3.5)	150 (8.5)	618 (21.4)	525 (46.4)	371 (78.8)
Number of confidantsa
0–3	528 (57.3)	1,008 (57.1)	1,638 (56.8)	709 (62.7)	310 (65.8)
≥ 4	394 (42.7)	757 (42.9)	1,244 (43.2)	422 (37.3)	161 (34.2)

n, number of subjects.

a How many people are there for you to confide in about your concerns/problems?

Binary logistic regression

The results for the binary logistic regression analyses are summarized in Table 3. Before adjustment for covariates, the odds ratios (ORs) were statistically significant for having few confidants in boys who were underweight (p < .05), low-normal weight (p < .05) or overweight (p < .01) and those who perceived themselves to be too thin (p < .001), a bit fat (p < .001), or too fat (p < .001). In girls, ORs were significant for those who were high-normal weight (p < .001) or overweight (p < .001) and those who perceived themselves to be a bit fat (p < .05) or too fat (p < .001). After adjusting for age, experience of being bullied and GHQ-12 scores, the odds ratios were statistically significant in boys who were underweight (p < .05) and overweight (p < .05) and those who perceived themselves as being too thin (p < .05), a bit fat (p < .01), and too fat (p < .01). In girls, being overweight (p < .001) and high-normal weight (p < .01) and perceiving oneself to be too fat (p < .05) showed significant odds ratios.

Table 3

Odds ratios and 95% CIs for the effects of WS and WP on having few confidants when adjusted for age, experience of being bullied, and depression/anxiety symptoms.

	Unadjusted	Adjusted
	Boys
Underweight	1.22 (1.04–1.44)	1.23 (1.04–1.45)
Low-normal weight	1.13 (1.00–1.27)	1.12 (0.99–1.27)
High-normal weight	1.10 (0.98–1.25)	1.09 (0.96–1.24)
Overweight	1.26 (1.09–1.47)	1.21 (1.04–1.41)
Too thin	1.37 (1.14–1.64)	1.21 (1.01–1.45)
A bit thin	1.03 (0.92–1.17)	1.00 (0.90–1.13)
A bit fat	1.33 (1.19–1.49)	1.21 (1.07–1.36)
Too fat	1.54 (1.30–1.83)	1.31 (1.10–1.56)
	Girls
Underweight	1.01 (0.87–1.17)	1.01 (0.86–1.17)
Low-normal weight	1.01 (0.90–1.14)	1.00 (0.89–1.13)
High-normal weight	1.28 (1.11–1.47)	1.26 (1.09–1.46)
Overweight	1.45 (1.18–1.78)	1.41 (1.15–1.74)
Too thin	1.43 (0.92–2.24)	1.31 (0.83–2.06)
A bit thin	1.04 (0.82–1.33)	0.99 (0.78–1.27)
A bit fat	1.15 (1.02–1.29)	1.05 (0.93–1.18)
Too fat	1.42 (1.24–1.63)	1.19 (1.03–1.37)

CI, confidence interval; WS, weight status (reference: mid-normal weight); WP, weight perception (reference: perceiving one's weight to be good). Significant associations are indicated in bold (p < .05) and italic (p < .10) letters. Covariates include age, experience of being bullied, and GHQ-12 score (0/1).

According to the sample calculation, the required sample size for the present binary logistic regression was shown to be 2,548 references versus 849 cases, when α = .05 and β = 0.1, with the assumptions of the proportion of adolescents who have few confidants in the reference group = 0.4, OR = 1.3, and the ratio of the references versus cases = 3:1. When the ratio of the references versus cases is assumed = 1:1, the sample size required is calculated as 1,276 references versus 1,276 cases. The actual sample size, summarized in Table 1, seems to be close to the calculated sample size, except for the groups of “underweight” boys and “overweight (plus obese)” girls among WS categories (note that “obese” and “overweight” were merged into the “overweight” category in the analysis), and the groups of boys and girls perceiving themselves to be “too thin”, girls perceiving themselves to be “a bit thin”, and boys perceiving themselves to be “too fat” among WP categories. Among these groups, no significant associations between WS/WP and the number of confidants were observed in girls perceiving themselves to be “a bit thin” and “too thin”.

Discussion

This is the first study to examine the associations of WS and WP with the number of confidants in adolescents. Adolescents having non-normal WS or WP had fewer confidants. Both boys and girls who were overweight, when compared with mid-normal weight counterparts, or perceived themselves as being too fat, when compared with those who perceived their weight to be good, were statistically significantly more likely to have few confidants. Girls who were high-normal weight were also more likely to have few confidants, as were boys who were underweight or perceived themselves to be too thin or a bit fat. Most associations remained significant after controlling for depressive and anxiety symptoms, suggesting that adolescents with non-normal WS or WP, even when they are currently without the symptoms, may be more likely to have few confidants compared with their reference counterparts.

Overweight adolescents being more likely to have few confidants is in line with studies in the literature. A previous study reported that overweight adolescents often do not have close friends or have difficulties in family relationships [12]. Another study found that overweight adolescents often do not perceive their best friends as confidants [15]. One study reported that overweight girls are less likely than normal weight counterparts to perceive their family members as confidants [16]. The reasons for overweight adolescents having fewer confidants may be partly explained by psychosocial factors including stigmatization. Overweight adolescents may often experience social rejection since individuals, including adolescents [37], often prefer thinner people [38]. High stigma with respect to body weight may make overweight adolescents opt out of a broader peer network [39], leading to less time spent with friends after school [12,15,17,22]. Overweight adolescents are also more likely to make friends with overweight peers [40] or peers with similar levels of bulimic behavior [24], which can limit their sources of friendships. Girls who had high-normal weight in the present study were also more likely to have few confidants. High-normal weight girls, as well as overweight girls, may experience social rejection by peers since teenage girls often characterize their ideal weight as low-normal weight [41].

Adolescents who perceived themselves to be too fat were more likely to have few confidants. This may be in line with previous studies finding that perceived-overweightedness was associated with social relationship difficulties [17,21] and withdrawnness [17] in adolescents and that perceived-overweightedness could be predicted by receiving negative comments from peers [42]. Similarly, boys with the perception that they were a bit fat were also more likely to have few confidants, but this was not observed in girls. A previous study reported that girls are more likely to become friends with other girls who have similar weight/shape concerns [24]. In the present study, more than half of the girls reported perceiving themselves to be a bit fat. In boys, the proportion was half of that in girls. This may suggest that the perception of being a bit fat may actually be “normal” in girls, mitigating any negative effects on the number of confidants, but not in boys.

The present study also showed that boys who were underweight or perceived themselves to be underweight were more likely to have few confidants. This may be in line with previous findings that males who are underweight are more likely to be introverted [19], and that boys who are extremely thin and who perceive themselves to be underweight have difficulty confiding in parents about personal issues [18]. While girls typically wish to be thinner, in contrast, boys often want to be larger [43]. In boys, it has been shown that lower WS predicted a stronger increase in muscularity concerns, referred to as muscular-ideal internalization, compared with heavier weight counterparts [44]. This desire for muscularity might have confounded the present observation in boys. Indeed, muscularity concerns significantly increase during adolescence [37,44] and muscle-gaining behaviors are shown to be more salient in popular boys [37]. Our findings raise the importance of recognizing not only overweightedness and obesity but also underweightedness as an issue regarding social relationships among adolescents.

WS and WP were significantly associated with having few confidants, after controlling for current depressive and anxiety symptoms. Having few confidants has been associated with subsequent development of mental health problems, including depressive disorder [45] and attempted self-harm [46]. The present results, taken together with these observations, suggest that adolescents with non-normal WS or WP might have increased risk of developing mental health problems associated with having few confidants, even if they do not currently have mental health problems. This seems to be in accordance with some previous studies, which find adverse effects of WS and WP on later developing mental health problems [47-52].

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, this study used cross-sectional data, and the results might not explain causality. Second, BMI values were calculated using self-report height and weight, which may have affected estimations of BMI values in some groups; a recent meta-analysis observed that, at least for the screening of overweight and obesity in adolescents, self-report data is a valid alternative to directly measured height and weight [53]. Third, outcomes were measured using a single question. Single questions may be inadequate to accurately assess participants’ characteristics. For example, adolescents might have different reasons for their WP, including muscularity concerns and shape concerns about specific body parts. The present study also did not elaborate on which type of confiding relationships, such as family, friends, or teachers, underlay the number of confidants. Future studies on WS and WP should also take into account whether the number of friends or social network size may affect the number of confidants a person has, since a lower number of confidants may be a side effect of loss of friends due to experiencing social rejection, for example through bullying and weight-related marginalization [31,32]. Fourth, inadequate sample size for girls perceiving themselves to be too thin or a bit thin might have affected their associations with the number of confidants due to the lack of statistical power.

Conclusions

The present study provides a novel perspective for understanding adolescents’ social and psychological problems in the light of body weight status and weight perception. As adolescents with non-normal WS and WP appear likely to have few confidants, more effort should be made to recognize and understand issues around social relationships in these adolescents and to give them more support in dealing with their challenges. Not only peers, but also family members and teachers should be made aware of the present findings and encouraged to look out for these adolescents.

Measurement of independent and dependent variables and covariates in the original language and English.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The distribution of weight status in boys and girls, stratified by school level, n (%).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The distribution of weight perception in boys and girls, stratified by school level, n (%).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The distribution of the number of confidants in boys and girls, stratified by school level, n (%).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18018

The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Sasaki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers addressed several major and minor concerns about your manuscript. Please revise your manuscript carefully.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 13 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kenji Hashimoto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents” presents interesting data, however manuscript can not be published because inadequate methodology has been applied.

Authors presented BMI cut-off by WHO, however this values are applicable only for adult population. For children growth reference charts must be applied – e.g. WHO recommendations for children under 18 years old. If in Japan national charts exist, it is an even better situation because of a better fitting for the Japanese adolescent population. Therefore the national growth reference charts should be applied.

Moreover, Authors should present the number of ethics committee's approval.

Authors also should complete the information about the statistical tests that have been applied. How did Authors verify the normality of data distribution? What tests did they used?

In my opinion, anthropometric measurements should be made. Especially, taking into account that another authors indicate that more than half middle- and high-school students, did not correctly perceive their own body weight (Yan et al. 2018. Body Weight Misperception and Its Association with Unhealthy Eating Behaviors among Adolescents in China. IJERPH.). In such situation, the own perception of body mass can not be perceived as a valid measurement.

Reviewer #2: 1. Please include explanation on why WS and WP were both used in the study in the Introduction Section.

2. Please state the sampling method used in the Methodology Section.

3. Please justify the division of weight category into low-normal weight, mid-normal weight, and high-normal weight (Line 132).

4. Please state the Operational Definition of 'WS, WP and Confidants' in the Methodology.

5. Since this study involved adolescents grade 7-12 (junior and high schools), was there any difference in terms of WS, WP and confidants numbers between age groups or school levels? Please elaborate more on age factor in the discussion.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting study on the association between non-normal weight status or weight perception and the number of confidants in adolescents. The manuscript addresses a relevant and important topic for the study of the health of adolescents.

Abstract:

I suggest including design of study in abstract.

Introduction:

1. The introduction is adequate, however I suggest excluding this sentence “Analyses of the associations are stratified by sex and further adjusted for age, experience of being bullied, and depressive and anxiety symptoms.”

Methods

1. Was there sample calculation? Please make it clear.

2. Why the authors decided to use Cole et al (2000 and 2007) as the reference of BMI cut-off? These BMI cut-off values are adequate to evaluate anthropometric status in children and adolescents, but have as limitations to use the same cut-offs for men and women.

3. Were the tools validated for adolescents? Could you indicate the alpha data? Please complete this.

Results:

1. I suggest avoiding the use of single-sentence paragraphs, for instance “The largest proportion of students (boys: 41.7%, girls: 40.1%) fell into the mid-normal weight group (Table 1).”

2. I suggest writing this sentence “The prevalence of being underweight 177 was 8.7% in boys and 12.7% in girls, while being overweight was 14.2% in boys and 7.5% in girls. WP for boys had a normal distribution, while the distribution of girls was skewed toward the perception of being fat.” before table 1.

Discussion:

1. In the first paragraph include for boys the association found between to be a bit fat and to have few confidants among adolescents.

2. I suggest improving the discussion for the result presented on pages 16 and 17, lines 231 to 236, about the association found between feeling a bit fat and to have few confidants among boys.

Conclusion:

Conclusions are adequate.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Oct 2019

Thank you all very much for your constructive comments. We have carefully considered all the points addressed and the feedback and have accordingly made substantial changes to the manuscript. Responses to each point raised by the Academic Editor and the Reviewers are addressed in the attachment file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Please let us know if any additional information or changes are needed. We look forward to working with you to bring our manuscript to publication.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-18018R1

The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Sasaki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two reviewers addressed several minor concerns about your revised manuscript. Please revise your manuscript again.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kenji Hashimoto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors need to verify the data distribution and must use the appropriate statistical tests. Using other tests can change the Results, and thus the Discussion and Conclusion. How did Authors verify the normal distribution of data? What tests they used? Authors should complete this information.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for responding accordingly to each comment. All of them have been addressed well. Congratulations on your rigorous analysis.

Reviewer #3: Thanks for answering all the questions, however, one question in the introduction section and two in the method still require minor adjustments as the following.

Introduction:

Although the authors agree to remove the sentence “Analyses of the associations are stratified by sex and further adjusted for age, experience of being bullied, and depressive and anxiety symptoms.” of the Introduction and report deleting it, it still remains in the manuscript in the page 5, lines 95 and 96.

Methods

1. I suggest removing the sampling process of the Results Section and including it in the Methodology Section

2. I apologize because I didn’t give the correct information. Was the General Health Questionnaire validated for adolescents? Could you indicate the alpha data? Please complete this.

Regards

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Nov 2019

Thank you all very much for your constructive comments. We have carefully considered all the points addressed and the feedback and have made changes to the manuscript accordingly. Responses to each point raised by the Reviewers are addressed in the attachment file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Please let us know if any additional information or changes are needed. We look forward to working with you to bring our manuscript to publication.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Nov 2019

The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents

PONE-D-19-18018R2

Dear Dr. Sasaki,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Kenji Hashimoto, PhD

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

20 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-18018R2

The association of weight status and weight perception with number of confidants in adolescents

Dear Dr. Sasaki:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Kenji Hashimoto

Section Editor

PLOS ONE