Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Underreporting of BMI in adults and its effect on obesity prevalence estimations in the period 1998 to 2001.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006 Nov; 14(11):2054-63.O

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify the determinants of underreporting BMI and to evaluate the possibilities of using self-reported data for valid obesity prevalence rate estimations.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A cross-sectional monitoring health survey was carried out between 1998 and 2002, and a review of published studies was performed. A total of 1809 men and 1882 women ages 20 to 59 years from The Netherlands were included. Body weight and height were reported and measured. Equations were calculated to estimate individuals' BMI from reported data. These equations and equations from published studies were applied to the present data to evaluate whether using these equations led to valid estimations of the obesity prevalence rate. Also, size of underestimation of obesity prevalence rate was compared between studies.

RESULTS

The prevalence of obesity was underestimated by 26.1% and 30.0% among men and women, respectively, when based on reported data. The most important determinant of underreporting BMI was a high BMI. When equations to calculate individuals' BMI from reported data were used, the obesity prevalence rate was still underestimated by 12.9% and 8.1% of the "true" obesity prevalence rate among men and women, respectively. The degree of underestimating the obesity prevalence was inconsistent across studies. Applying equations from published studies to the present data led to estimations of the obesity prevalence varying from a 7% overestimation to a 74% underestimation.

DISCUSSION

Valuable efforts for monitoring and evaluating prevention and treatment studies require direct measurements of body weight and height.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. TOMMY.VISSCHER@FALW.VU.NLNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17135623

Citation

Visscher, Tommy L S., et al. "Underreporting of BMI in Adults and Its Effect On Obesity Prevalence Estimations in the Period 1998 to 2001." Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), vol. 14, no. 11, 2006, pp. 2054-63.
Visscher TL, Viet AL, Kroesbergen IH, et al. Underreporting of BMI in adults and its effect on obesity prevalence estimations in the period 1998 to 2001. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(11):2054-63.
Visscher, T. L., Viet, A. L., Kroesbergen, I. H., & Seidell, J. C. (2006). Underreporting of BMI in adults and its effect on obesity prevalence estimations in the period 1998 to 2001. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 14(11), 2054-63.
Visscher TL, et al. Underreporting of BMI in Adults and Its Effect On Obesity Prevalence Estimations in the Period 1998 to 2001. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(11):2054-63. PubMed PMID: 17135623.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Underreporting of BMI in adults and its effect on obesity prevalence estimations in the period 1998 to 2001. AU - Visscher,Tommy L S, AU - Viet,A Lucie, AU - Kroesbergen,Ike H T, AU - Seidell,Jacob C, PY - 2006/12/1/pubmed PY - 2007/2/16/medline PY - 2006/12/1/entrez SP - 2054 EP - 63 JF - Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) JO - Obesity (Silver Spring) VL - 14 IS - 11 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To identify the determinants of underreporting BMI and to evaluate the possibilities of using self-reported data for valid obesity prevalence rate estimations. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A cross-sectional monitoring health survey was carried out between 1998 and 2002, and a review of published studies was performed. A total of 1809 men and 1882 women ages 20 to 59 years from The Netherlands were included. Body weight and height were reported and measured. Equations were calculated to estimate individuals' BMI from reported data. These equations and equations from published studies were applied to the present data to evaluate whether using these equations led to valid estimations of the obesity prevalence rate. Also, size of underestimation of obesity prevalence rate was compared between studies. RESULTS: The prevalence of obesity was underestimated by 26.1% and 30.0% among men and women, respectively, when based on reported data. The most important determinant of underreporting BMI was a high BMI. When equations to calculate individuals' BMI from reported data were used, the obesity prevalence rate was still underestimated by 12.9% and 8.1% of the "true" obesity prevalence rate among men and women, respectively. The degree of underestimating the obesity prevalence was inconsistent across studies. Applying equations from published studies to the present data led to estimations of the obesity prevalence varying from a 7% overestimation to a 74% underestimation. DISCUSSION: Valuable efforts for monitoring and evaluating prevention and treatment studies require direct measurements of body weight and height. SN - 1930-7381 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17135623/Underreporting_of_BMI_in_adults_and_its_effect_on_obesity_prevalence_estimations_in_the_period_1998_to_2001_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2006.240 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -