Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
less, about the same, a little more and a lot more. These
ranking participants.
Results
Data was missing less often for comparative weight (1.2%)
than self-reported weight (12.5%). Of the 2,304 women with
both BMI and comparative weight data, the two measures fell
in the same category for 54.3%. Comparative weight
underestimated self-reported BMI for 36.4%. The correlation
coefficient was 0.64 (0.610.66), indicating that comparative
weight is in overall good correlation with past BMI.
Methods
As part of a case-control study on breast cancer, 2,647
women aged 45 years completed a questionnaire
containing questions on height (current) and weight in their
early thirties. The study has been described in detail
elsewhere.7 Participants were also asked how their weight in
their early thirties compared with that of other women of the
same age and height (comparative weight), using the answer
categories a lot less, a little less, about the same, a little
more and a lot more.
Conclusion
past BMI.
Introduction
Body mass index (BMI) based on self-reported weight and
height is often used as a measure of body size in
epidemiological studies. Although underreporting of BMI
occurs mainly among overweight persons, elderly and
Results
The mean age of the study participants was 60.3 years, with 39.3% self-reporting a healthy current BMI and just over half
currently self-reporting overweight or obesity (Table 1). Fifty-six per cent of women had never smoked, 16.6% had at least a
university education, and 83.2% were post-menopausal. There were no substantial differences between cases and controls.
Table 1. Characteristics of cases and controls in the Breast Cancer Environment and Employment Study.
Characteristics
Cases
n = 1,037
Controls
n = 1,610
All persons
n = 2,647
60.3 (9.3)
60.4 (8.5)
60.3 (8.8)
17 (1.6%)
29 (1.8%)
46 (1.7%)
400 (38.6%)
639 (39.7%)
1,039 (39.3%)
Overweight (2530kg/m2)
350 (33.8%)
531 (33.0%)
881 (33.3%)
Obese (>30kg/m2)
245 (23.6%)
372 (23.1%)
617 (23.3%)
25 (2.4%)
39 (2.4%)
64 (2.4%)
Current smoker
76 (7.3%)
136 (8.5%)
212 (8.0%)
Former smoker
399 (38.5%)
543 (33.7%)
942 (35.6%)
Never smoker
558 (53.8%)
925 (57.5%)
1,483 (56.0%)
4 (0.4%)
6 (0.4%)
10 (0.4%)
198 (19.1%)
242 (15.0%)
440 (16.6%)
835 (80.5%)
1,366 (84.8%)
2,201 (83.2%)
Missing
Smoking status, n (%)
Missing
Table 2 shows that data were missing less often for comparative weight (1.2%) than self-reported weight (12.5%). Of the 2,304
women who reported both BMI and comparative weight in their early thirties, the two measures fell in the same category for
54.3%. For 36.4% their comparative weight underestimated self-reported BMI, and for 9.3% comparative weight overestimated
self-reported BMI. A similar pattern of over- and underestimation was seen among both cases and controls (data not shown).
Table 2. Comparison of self-reported BMI and comparative weight in early thirties, for women aged 45 years at time
of data collection.
Body mass index (BMI)
Underweight
N (%)
Healthy weight
N (%)
Overweight
N (%)
Obese
N (%)
Missing
N (%)
Total
N (%)
153 (5.8)
636 (24.0)
16 (0.6)
3 (0.1)
61 (2.3)
869 (26.7)
46 (1.7)
897 (33.9)
125 (4.7)
9 (0.3)
172 (6.5)
1,249 (47.2)
A little more
1 (0.0)
139 (5.3)
153 (5.8)
49 (1.9)
63 (2.4)
405 (15.3)
A lot more
0 (0.0)
6 (0.2)
22 (0.8)
49 (1.9)
14 (0.5)
91 (3.4)
Missing
2 (0.1)
6 (0.2)
3 (0.1)
0 (0.0)
22 (0.8)
33 (1.2)
202 (7.6)
1,684 (63.6)
319 (12.1)
110 (4.2)
332 (12.5)
2,647 (100)
Comparative weight
Less
Total
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the BCEES study team for
their assistance.
Funding
<65 years and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.510.61, <0.0001) among those
with age, but equally between the measures (data not shown).
Discussion
References