Urban-rural comparison of weight status among women and children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods

被引:39
作者
Cleland, Verity
Hume, Clare
Crawford, David [1 ]
Timperio, Anna
Hesketh, Kylie
Baur, Louise [2 ]
Welch, Nicky [3 ]
Salmon, Jo [1 ]
Ball, Kylie [1 ]
机构
[1] Deakin Univ, Ctr Phys Act & Nutr Res, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Childrens Hosp Westmead, Phys Act Nutr & Obes Res Grp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Victorian Dept Human Serv, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
BODY-MASS INDEX; LIFE-STYLE; OBESITY; OVERWEIGHT; AUSTRALIA; PREVALENCE; ADULTS; HEIGHT; COHORT;
D O I
10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03451.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the weight status of women and children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged rural and urban neighbourhoods in Victoria. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional study of data collected between August 2007 and July 2008 as part of the Resilience for Eating and Activity Despite Inequality (READI) study. Women aged 18-45 years living in 40 rural and 40 urban socioeconomically disadvantaged Victorian areas were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Data from a subset of their children aged 5-12 years were also analysed. Weight and height were self-reported for women and measured for children. Main outcome measures: Women's weight status based on body mass index (BMI): underweight; healthy; overweight; or obese Class 1, 11 or 111; children's weight status based on International Obesity Taskforce BMI cut-off points. Results: Of 11940 women randomly selected, 4934 (41%) replied to a postal invitation to participate. After exclusions for various reasons, data were available on 3879 women and 636 of their children. Twenty-four per cent of urban and 26% of rural women were classified as overweight; a further 19% of urban and 23% of rural women were classified as obese. Twenty per cent of both urban and rural children were classified as overweight; a further 10% of urban and rural children were classified as obese. In crude analyses, rural women had higher odds of Class I and 11 obesity (odds ratio [OR], 1.34 and 1.72, respectively) compared with urban women. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors (age, number of children, country of birth, education level, employment status and marital status), there was no difference between urban and rural women in odds of overweight or obesity Class I, II or III. No significant urban-rural difference in odds of overweight/obesity was evident among children. Conclusions: The higher prevalence of obesity in rural women compared with urban women was largely explained by individual-level sociodemographic factors, such as age, number of children, country of birth, education level, employment status and marital status. This suggests that higher obesity levels among women in rural areas may be attributable to the sociodemographic composition of these areas.
引用
收藏
页码:137 / 140
页数:4
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
Access Economics Pty Ltd, 2006, EC COSTS OB
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2009, 43640 NAT HLTH SURV
[3]  
*AUSTR BUR STAT, 2003, 20390 ABS
[4]  
*AUSTR DEP HLTH AG, 2007, 2007 AUSTR NAT CHILD
[5]  
*AUSTR I HLTH WELF, 2004, 53 AIHW PHE
[6]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005, RUR HLTH SER AUSTR I
[7]   Patterns and demographic predictors of 5-year weight change in a multi-ethnic cohort of men and women in Australia [J].
Ball, K ;
Crawford, D ;
Ireland, P ;
Hodge, A .
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION, 2003, 6 (03) :269-280
[8]   Socioeconomic status and weight change in adults: a review [J].
Ball, K ;
Crawford, D .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 60 (09) :1987-2010
[9]   Trends in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among young Australians, 1985, 19979 and 2004 [J].
Booth, Michael L. ;
Dobbins, Timothy ;
Okely, Anthony D. ;
Denney-Wilson, Elizabeth ;
Hardy, Louise L. .
OBESITY, 2007, 15 (05) :1089-1095
[10]   Socioeconomic differentials in misclassification of height, weight and body mass index based on questionnaire data [J].
Bostrom, G ;
Diderichsen, F .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 26 (04) :860-866