| Literature DB >> 33455932 |
Killian Asampana Asosega1, Atinuke Olusola Adebanji2, Iddrisu Wahab Abdul3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identifying hot spots for the overweight aids in effective public health interventions due to the associated public health burden and morbidities. This study, therefore aimed to explore and determine the spatial disparities in the overweight/obesity prevalence among women in Ghana. The study also aims at modelling the average body mass index (BMI) values using the spatial regression and the performance compared with the standard regression model.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiology; public health; statistics & research methods
Year: 2021 PMID: 33455932 PMCID: PMC7813332 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Demographic characteristics and body weight categories
| Weight category | Underweight | Normal | Overweight | Obese |
| 286 (6.5%) | 2549 (58.0%) | 1007 (22.9%) | 551 (12.5%) | |
| Place of residence | ||||
| Urban | 124 (5.7%) | 1054 (48.5%) | 597 (27.4%) | 400 (18.4%) |
| Rural | 162 (7.3%) | 1495 (67.4%) | 410 (18.5%) | 151 (6.8%) |
| Educational attainment | ||||
| No formal education | 67 (6.3%) | 715 (67.6%) | 194 (18.4%) | 81 (7.7%) |
| Primary | 72 (8.6%) | 488 (58.1%) | 178 (21.2%) | 102 (12.1%) |
| Secondary | 136 (6.0%) | 1251 (55.2%) | 564 (24.9%) | 317 (14.0%) |
| Higher | 11 (4.8%) | 95 (41.7%) | 71 (31.1%) | 51 (22.4%) |
| Household wealth status | ||||
| Poor | 179 (9.4%) | 1387 (72.7%) | 281 (14.7%) | 61 (3.2%) |
| Middle | 39 (4.3%) | 510 (56.2%) | 234 (25.8%) | 124 (13.7%) |
| Rich | 68 (4.3%) | 652 (41.3%) | 492 (31.2%) | 366 (23.2%) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 85 (4.4%) | 997 (52.0%) | 524 (27.3%) | 313 (16.3%) |
| Widowed/divorced | 15 (4.6%) | 130 (40.1%) | 104 (32.1%) | 75 (23.1%) |
| Never married | 163 (10.2%) | 1098 (68.7%) | 242 (15.1%) | 95 (5.9%) |
| Cohabiting | 23 (4.2%) | 324 (58.7%) | 137 (24.8%) | 68 (12.3%) |
Test of association statistics
| Demographic characteristics | χ2 statistic | df | P value |
| Place of residence | 202.543 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Educational background | 86.645 | 3 | <0.001 |
| Household wealth status | 509.325 | 2 | <0.001 |
| Marital status | 256.082 | 3 | <0.001 |
Figure 2BMI status of clusters. BMI, body mass index.
Moran’s I test Statistics
| Moran’s I | SE | Z value | Significance |
| 0.3145 | 0.0195 | 16.1859 | 0.005 |
Figure 3Significant clustering of clusters. LISA, local indicator of spatial autocorrelation.
Statistics of fitted models
| Model | OLS | SLM | SEM |
| Intercept | 20.3164*** | 14.9808*** | 20.3511*** |
| (0.8883) | (1.1289) | (0.8829) | |
| Maternal average age | 0.1514*** | 0.1469*** | 0.1460*** |
| (0.0354) | (0.0347) | (0.0352) | |
| Average number of children | −0.1419 | −0.1517 | −0.1015 |
| (0.1291) | (0.1270) | (0.1312) | |
| Household wealth | 0.0125*** | 0.0108*** | 0.0121*** |
| (0.0034) | (0.004) | (0.0038) | |
| Lagged IBM (ρ) | 0.2248*** | ||
| (0.0678) | |||
| Lagged error (λ) | 0.2544** | ||
| (0.1086) | |||
| AIC | 1728.97 | 1724.07 | |
| BIC | 1748.20 | 1740.30 | |
| LRT | 10.4468*** | 4.8998* |
*p≤ 0.05, **p≤ 0.01, ***p≤ 0.001.
AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; LRT, likelihood ratio test; OLS, ordinary least square; SEM, spatial error model; SLM, spatial lag model.