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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Le, Anh, Judd, Suzanne E., Allison, David B., Oza-Frank, Reena, Affuso, Olivia, Safford, Monika M., Howard, Virginia J., Howard, George
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