Cargando…
The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity
OBJECTIVE: State-level estimates of obesity based on self-reported height and weight suggest a geographic pattern of greater obesity in the Southeastern US; however, the reliability of the ranking among these estimates assumes errors in self-reporting of height and weight are unrelated to geographic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oby.20451 |
_version_ | 1782296129533116416 |
---|---|
author | Le, Anh Judd, Suzanne E. Allison, David B. Oza-Frank, Reena Affuso, Olivia Safford, Monika M. Howard, Virginia J. Howard, George |
author_facet | Le, Anh Judd, Suzanne E. Allison, David B. Oza-Frank, Reena Affuso, Olivia Safford, Monika M. Howard, Virginia J. Howard, George |
author_sort | Le, Anh |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: State-level estimates of obesity based on self-reported height and weight suggest a geographic pattern of greater obesity in the Southeastern US; however, the reliability of the ranking among these estimates assumes errors in self-reporting of height and weight are unrelated to geographic region. DESIGN AND METHODS: We estimated regional and state-level prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) for non-Hispanic black and white participants aged 45 and over were made from multiple sources: 1) self-reported from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS 2003-2006) (n = 677,425), 2) self-reported and direct measures from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES 2003-2008) (n = 6,615 and 6,138 respectively), and 3) direct measures from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS 2003-2007) study (n = 30,239). RESULTS: Data from BRFSS suggest that the highest prevalence of obesity is in the East South Central Census division; however, direct measures suggest higher prevalence in the West North Central and East North Central Census divisions. The regions relative ranking of obesity prevalence differs substantially between self-reported and directly measured height and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic patterns in the prevalence of obesity based on self-reported height and weight may be misleading, and have implications for current policy proposals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3866220 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38662202014-07-01 The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity Le, Anh Judd, Suzanne E. Allison, David B. Oza-Frank, Reena Affuso, Olivia Safford, Monika M. Howard, Virginia J. Howard, George Obesity (Silver Spring) Article OBJECTIVE: State-level estimates of obesity based on self-reported height and weight suggest a geographic pattern of greater obesity in the Southeastern US; however, the reliability of the ranking among these estimates assumes errors in self-reporting of height and weight are unrelated to geographic region. DESIGN AND METHODS: We estimated regional and state-level prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) for non-Hispanic black and white participants aged 45 and over were made from multiple sources: 1) self-reported from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS 2003-2006) (n = 677,425), 2) self-reported and direct measures from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES 2003-2008) (n = 6,615 and 6,138 respectively), and 3) direct measures from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS 2003-2007) study (n = 30,239). RESULTS: Data from BRFSS suggest that the highest prevalence of obesity is in the East South Central Census division; however, direct measures suggest higher prevalence in the West North Central and East North Central Census divisions. The regions relative ranking of obesity prevalence differs substantially between self-reported and directly measured height and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic patterns in the prevalence of obesity based on self-reported height and weight may be misleading, and have implications for current policy proposals. 2013-06-13 2014-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3866220/ /pubmed/23512879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oby.20451 Text en http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use:http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms |
spellingShingle | Article Le, Anh Judd, Suzanne E. Allison, David B. Oza-Frank, Reena Affuso, Olivia Safford, Monika M. Howard, Virginia J. Howard, George The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title | The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title_full | The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title_fullStr | The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title_full_unstemmed | The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title_short | The Geographic Distribution of Obesity in the US and the Potential Regional Differences in Misreporting of Obesity |
title_sort | geographic distribution of obesity in the us and the potential regional differences in misreporting of obesity |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oby.20451 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leanh thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT juddsuzannee thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT allisondavidb thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT ozafrankreena thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT affusoolivia thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT saffordmonikam thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT howardvirginiaj thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT howardgeorge thegeographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT leanh geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT juddsuzannee geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT allisondavidb geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT ozafrankreena geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT affusoolivia geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT saffordmonikam geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT howardvirginiaj geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity AT howardgeorge geographicdistributionofobesityintheusandthepotentialregionaldifferencesinmisreportingofobesity |