Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T06:33:40.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of using national v. international definitions of underweight, overweight and obesity: an example from Kuwait

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2011

Mira El-Ghaziri
Affiliation:
Life Course Nutrition and Health, Yorkhill Hospitals, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Shurooq Boodai
Affiliation:
Life Course Nutrition and Health, Yorkhill Hospitals, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
David Young
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
John J Reilly*
Affiliation:
Life Course Nutrition and Health, Yorkhill Hospitals, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To compare the classification of overweight, obesity and underweight using international v. national approaches in Kuwaiti adolescents.

Design

Assessment of underweight, overweight and obesity using a national approach (based on Kuwaiti reference data for BMI-for-age) was compared with assessments obtained using three international approaches: the Cole et al. and International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) definitions of thinness and of overweight and obesity (Cole-IOTF); WHO 2007; and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2000 reference data and definitions. The degree of agreement between the different methods was assessed using the weighted κ statistic (κw).

Setting

Two randomly selected public intermediate schools in Kuwait City.

Subjects

A total of 499 10–14-year-old Kuwaiti adolescents.

Results

Prevalence of overweight and obesity using Kuwaiti reference data (36·7 %; 95 % CI 32·4, 41·1) was significantly lower than that obtained using international approaches – Cole-IOTF (44·7 %; 95 % CI 40·3, 49·2), CDC 2000 (44·9 %; 95 % CI 40·5, 49·4) and WHO 2007 (50·5 %; 95 % CI 46·0, 55·0) (P < 0·01). All three international approaches showed almost perfect agreement: IOTF v. WHO (κw = 0·82; 95 % CI 0·79, 0·85) and IOTF v. CDC (κw = 0·90; 95 % CI 0·87, 0·92). However, Kuwaiti reference data showed the lowest agreement with the three international approaches, the poorest being with WHO 2007 (κw = 0·54; 95 % CI 0·49, 0·59).

Conclusions

Caution should be exercised when using recently collected national reference data and definitions while assessing underweight, overweight and obesity for clinical and public health applications.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Childhood obesity and underweight are both related to poor health outcomes in the short and long terms(Reference Pelletier, Frongillo and Habicht1Reference Reilly and Kelly5). The ‘double burden’ of childhood undernutrition and overnutrition means that appropriate assessment is required at both ends of the spectrum of adiposity. BMI-for-age is the most suitable and simple means of assessing the weight status of children and adolescents(Reference de Onis, Onyango and Borghi6Reference Kuczmarski, Ogden and Grummer-Strawn10). BMI is appropriate for public health applications such as surveillance, monitoring the impact of population-based interventions and for clinical applications. However, interpretation of BMI-for-age is complicated by the use of different population reference data and different cut-off points.

The childhood obesity epidemic has been dramatic in the Arabian Gulf States and the Eastern Mediterranean(Reference Ng, Zaghloul and Ali11, Reference Musaiger12). Many nations in this area have, or are developing, BMI-for-age population reference data for the assessment of nutritional status because of the belief that between-nation variations in childhood growth and nutritional status are of biological significance(Reference Wehkalampi, Silventoinen and Kaprio13, Reference Euling, Selevan and Pescovitz14). Recent BMI-for-age reference data have been developed in Cyprus(Reference Savva, Kourides and Tornaritis15), Israel(Reference Huerta, Gdalevich and Tlashadze16), the United Arab Emirates(Reference Abdulrazzaq, Moussa and Nagelkerke17), Morocco(Reference Fredriks, van Buuren and Jeurissen18), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(Reference Al Herbish, El Mouzan and Al Salloum19), Turkey(Reference Fredriks, van Buuren and Jeurissen20) and Kuwait(Reference Al-Isa21). However, most of these recent BMI-for-age reference data were constructed after 1997 and might thus reflect the effect of the obesity epidemic.

At present, there is no clear evidence with regard to the impact of using recently developed national v. international approaches on BMI-for-age-based definitions of weight status in older children and adolescents. Therefore, the present study aimed to quantify differences in assessment of weight status arising when recent national (Kuwaiti) and international BMI-for-age approaches and reference data were used with data from the same sample of Kuwaiti adolescents.

Methods

Sample and sampling frame

The sample was recruited from two randomly selected public intermediate schools in Kuwait City. Schools in Kuwait City were selected because Kuwait is highly urbanized. Of eight intermediate schools selected randomly, two agreed to participate. All 949 potentially eligible pupils in the schools were invited to take part. A total of 499 participants (53 %) and their families provided written informed consent. All were Kuwaiti nationals; there were 317 boys (63·5 %) and 182 girls (36·5 %) aged 10–14 years. The study obtained ethical approval from the Ethical Committee for Medical Research in Kuwait.

Anthropometric measurements

Measurements of weight and height were taken at each school by a trained researcher. Weight was measured with the subject standing, wearing light clothing, to the nearest 0·1 kg using a model TBF-300 scale (Tanita, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Height was measured without shoes to the nearest 0·1 cm using a portable stadiometer.

Method comparisons: reference data and definitions

Four different approaches based on BMI-for-age were used to assess weight status: national reference data and definitions from recent Kuwaiti population reference data(Reference Al-Isa21); WHO 2007(Reference de Onis, Onyango and Borghi6); US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2000(Reference Kuczmarski, Ogden and Grummer-Strawn10); and the Cole et al. and International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) recent definitions of thinness and more established definitions of overweight and obesity (Cole-IOTF)(Reference Cole, Flegal and Nicholls8, Reference Cole, Bellizzi and Flegal9).

To define overweight and obesity, the cut-off percentiles used were ≥85th and ≥95th percentile, respectively, relative to the US CDC 2000 and Kuwaiti reference data, and a Z-score >+1 sd and >+2 sd, respectively, relative to WHO 2007 reference data, as these cut-off points are widely used and/or recommended(Reference de Onis, Onyango and Borghi6, Reference Kuczmarski, Ogden and Grummer-Strawn10, Reference Al-Isa21). For the Cole-IOTF definitions of overweight and obesity, the appropriate age- and sex-specific cut-off points that were conceptually equivalent to adult BMI values of 25·0 and 30·0 kg/m2 were used.

For defining underweight or thinness, the cut-off points used with WHO 2007, US CDC 2000 and Kuwaiti reference data were those used and/or recommended elsewhere(Reference de Onis, Onyango and Borghi6, Reference Kuczmarski, Ogden and Grummer-Strawn10, Reference Fredriks, van Buuren and Jeurissen20): BMI-for age <5th percentile relative to CDC 2000 and Kuwaiti reference data; and a BMI Z-score <−2 sd relative to WHO 2007 reference data. Although no consensus definition of child or adolescent thinness based on BMI-for-age is available, Cole et al.(Reference Cole, Flegal and Nicholls8) have proposed definitions conceptually equivalent to adult definitions based on BMI (with cut-off points equivalent to BMI values of 16·0, 17·0 and 18·5 kg/m2 at the age of 18 years). A BMI of 17·0 kg/m2 at 18 years of age is the proposed cut-off point for thinness grade 2(Reference Cole, Flegal and Nicholls8), corresponding to Z-score <−2 sd; therefore, this was the cut-off point used in the present study.

Study participants were considered stunted if their height-for-age Z-score was <−2 sd relative to CDC 2000 and/or WHO 2007. Height-for-age Z-scores for the Kuwaiti sample were also calculated as a check on the appropriateness of the comparisons between the Kuwaiti sample and the external reference data.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented with mean and sd or median and range, as appropriate, together with 95 % CI.

The two-proportion test was used to compare prevalence of the different categories of weight status given by the different approaches. In order to determine the agreement between the four definitions of underweight/thinness, overweight and obesity at the individual level, the weighted κ statistic (κ w) was used(Reference Cohen22). The κ w value was calculated with 95 % CI and with four categories of weight status (underweight, healthy weight, overweight and obese). All κ w values were interpreted as suggested by Landis and Koch(Reference Landis and Koch23): 0·21–0·40 ‘fair agreement’; 0·41–0·60 ‘moderate agreement’; 0·61–0·80 ‘substantial agreement’; and 0·81–1·00 ‘almost perfect agreement’. Data collected were entered into Microsoft Excel and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences statistical software package version 14·0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Characteristics of study participants

Characteristics of study participants are provided in Table 1. Relative to the WHO 2007 and CDC 2000 approaches, Kuwaiti children and adolescents had high BMI-for-age Z-scores, but height-for-age Z-scores showed no statistically significant differences between the Kuwaiti sample and the international references.

Table 1 Summary of anthropometric data for study participants

IQR, interquartile range; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

*Data are presented as median and IQR because of non-normal distribution.

†Data are presented as mean and sd because of normal distribution.

Differences in the prevalence of underweight, overweight and obesity between international approaches and the national approach

Prevalence estimates for underweight/thinness, overweight and obesity from the various approaches are shown in Table 2. The Kuwaiti reference data provided the highest prevalence of healthy weight status (62·9 %) and the lowest estimate of overweight and obesity prevalence (36·7 %) and of obesity prevalence (14·6 %). The Kuwaiti reference produced significantly higher prevalence of healthy weight status (two-proportion tests, all P < 0·01) and significantly lower prevalence of overweight and obesity compared with all three international approaches (two-proportion tests, all P < 0·01).

Table 2 Prevalence estimates for underweight, healthy weight status, overweight and obesity using four different approaches (n 499)

IOTF, International Obesity Task Force; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; N/A, not applicable.

*The proportion test (www.medcalc.org/manual/testoneproportion) was used to calculate 95 % CI for prevalence estimates.

No significant differences in the prevalence of healthy weight status and combined overweight and obesity prevalence were found between the three international approaches tested.

Agreement in assessment of weight status between the various approaches

Weighted κ values for the four approaches are given in Table 3. All international approaches showed ‘almost perfect agreement’, the highest being between CDC 2000 and WHO 2007 (κ w = 0·92), with Cole-IOTF showing a high agreement with both WHO 2007 (κ w = 0·82) and CDC 2000 (κ w = 0·90). The Kuwaiti approach had the lowest agreement with the international approaches, the lowest agreement being with the WHO 2007 (κ w = 0·54) and CDC 2000 approaches (κ w = 0·61).

Table 3 Extent of agreement between the different approaches

κ w, weighted κ statistic; IOTF, International Obesity Task Force; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Discussion

Main findings and study implications

The present study was the first to examine the impact of using recently collected national reference data and nutritional status definitions with international approaches using a sample from one of the Gulf states. The present study suggests that there might be fairly similar estimates of the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy weight status when international approaches are applied and also found an ‘almost perfect’ agreement (κ w) between the various international approaches.

The present study showed marked differences in the assessment of weight status between Kuwaiti and international approaches. These differences have important implications for public health applications of nutritional assessment, such as surveillance, identifying secular trends in weight status and evaluating the impact of interventional programmes. The findings of the present study also have clinical implications for Kuwait and other Gulf states. A detailed discussion of the origin of the marked difference between the Kuwaiti approach and the international approaches is beyond the scope of the present study; however, the recent origin of the Kuwaiti reference data (collected in 1999–2000) means that these were probably influenced greatly by the obesity epidemic: 95th percentiles for BMI for boys and girls of mean age 12·0 years from the Kuwaiti reference were 30·0 and 31·1 kg/m2, respectively, whereas according to the US CDC reference these were 25·0 and 26·3 kg/m2, respectively(Reference Al-Isa21). These differences between the Kuwaiti and other reference data probably reflect marked differences in energy balance between the populations used to derive reference data; the absence of significant height differences between the various approaches tested here supports this view(Reference Butte, Garza and de Onis24).

Many nations that have experienced a childhood obesity epidemic have, or are in the process of developing, national BMI-for-age reference data. A debate is underway as to the merits of using national v. international reference data for assessment of weight status(Reference Reilly, Kelly and Wilson7, Reference Sakamoto and Yang25). The present study suggests that public health and clinical decisions regarding whether or not to use national BMI reference data should be made with caution, particularly if the reference data were collected after the advent of the obesity epidemic. Using recently collected national BMI reference data could lead to underestimation of childhood obesity and overweight prevalence, as well as to an absence of clinical or public health interventions when these would be indicated.

Comparisons with other studies

No directly comparable studies from Gulf states have been published. Some studies from other populations have found similarities between the use of the WHO 2007 and US CDC 2000 reference data with regard to prevalence estimates of obesity(Reference Baya Botti, Perez-Cueto and Vasquez Monllor26, Reference Kulaga, Litwin and Tkaczyk27), which relate to the large degree of overlap between these reference data sets. The significantly higher overweight and obesity prevalence observed using international references compared with national reference data was found in other populations(Reference Baya Botti, Perez-Cueto and Vasquez Monllor26, Reference Matusik, Malecka-Tendera and Klimek28), and the ‘almost perfect’ agreement between IOTF and WHO approaches was also found in one other study(Reference Wang and Wang29).

A recent systematic review found that the IOTF definition of obesity was highly conservative(Reference Reilly, Kelly and Wilson7). The fact that the Kuwaiti definition of obesity produced even lower estimates of obesity prevalence than the IOTF definition is a clear indication that use of the Kuwaiti approach would be too conservative.

Khasnutdinova et al. (Reference Khasnutdinova and Grjibovski30) in a recent study from Russia showed that using national reference data for BMI-for-age provided lower estimates for the prevalence of overweight and obesity compared with the WHO 2007, CDC 2000 and IOTF criteria, but only among boys. The possibility that agreement in the assessment of weight status between national and international approaches might vary greatly between the sexes might be worth exploring in future studies but was not possible in the present study because of lack of power.

Study limitations

The low prevalence of underweight or thinness among Kuwaiti children and adolescents in the present study meant that agreement between the various approaches for underweight could not be examined separately. The present study did not encompass the entire age range for which weight status could be assessed using Z-scores and percentile charts; therefore generalisability to younger and older populations would have to be established. The generalisability of the present study within Kuwaiti 10–14-year-old children is probably high, as the sample was recruited from urban public schools typical of those that educate most Kuwaiti nationals, although differential non-consent by weight status may have occurred. Generalisability beyond Kuwait is unclear and must be confirmed by future research. For nations that have collected BMI-for-age reference data recently (after the obesity epidemic), a similar impact on nutritional assessment can be expected.

Although the present study compared the agreement between various approaches, it is difficult to establish the validity of each, because at present no ‘gold standard’ exists. However, some of the approaches tested in the present study have good evidence of external validity. For example, a recent systematic review found that the Cole-IOTF definition of obesity has high specificity for obesity (defined as excess body fat content) among children and adolescents(Reference Reilly, Kelly and Wilson7).

Conclusions

The various international approaches to assess weight status produce broadly similar assessments when applied to adolescents in Kuwait. More marked discrepancies in assessment of weight status would be expected with the use of national BMI-for-age reference data. Use of recently collected national reference data for BMI for the purpose of nutritional assessment should be considered with caution and requires a careful examination of whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Acknowledgements

The present study was funded by the Scottish Funding Council, by the Karim Rida Said Association and by the British Lebanese Association. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. M.E.-G. and J.J.R. conceptualized the study and contributed to the initial drafting of the manuscript; S.B. contributed to data collection. All authors are responsible for planning the study design and methods, for data analysis and interpretation and for critical revisions of the manuscript.

References

1.Pelletier, DL, Frongillo, EA Jr & Habicht, JP (1993) Epidemiologic evidence for a potentiating effect of malnutrition on child mortality. Am J Public Health 83, 11301133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Seidenfeld, ME, Sosin, E & Rickert, VI (2004) Nutrition and eating disorders in adolescents. Mt Sinai J Med 71, 155161.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Flegal, KM, Graubard, BI, Williamson, DF et al. (2005) Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA 293, 18611867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Reilly, JJ, Methven, E, McDowell, ZC et al. (2003) Health consequences of obesity. Arch Dis Child 88, 748752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Reilly, JJ & Kelly, J (2010) Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond) (In the Press).Google ScholarPubMed
6.de Onis, M, Onyango, AW, Borghi, E et al. (2007) Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull World Health Organ 85, 660667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Reilly, JJ, Kelly, J & Wilson, DC (2010) Accuracy of simple clinical and epidemiological definitions of childhood obesity: systematic review and evidence appraisal. Obes Rev 11, 645655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cole, TJ, Flegal, KM, Nicholls, D et al. (2007) Body mass index cut offs to define thinness in children and adolescents: international survey. BMJ 335, 194198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Cole, TJ, Bellizzi, MC, Flegal, KM et al. (2000) Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ 320, 12401243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Kuczmarski, RJ, Ogden, CL, Grummer-Strawn, LM et al. (2000) CDC growth charts: United States. Adv Data 314, 127.Google Scholar
11.Ng, SW, Zaghloul, S, Ali, HI et al. (2011) The prevalence and trends of overweight, obesity and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases in the Arabian Gulf states. Obes Rev 12, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Musaiger, AO (2004) Overweight and obesity in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: can we control it? East Mediterr Health J 10, 789793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Wehkalampi, K, Silventoinen, K, Kaprio, J et al. (2008) Genetic and environmental influences on pubertal timing assessed by height growth. Am J Hum Biol 20, 417423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Euling, SY, Selevan, SG, Pescovitz, OH et al. (2008) Role of environmental factors in the timing of puberty. Pediatrics 121, Suppl. 3, S167S171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Savva, SC, Kourides, Y, Tornaritis, M et al. (2001) Reference growth curves for Cypriot children 6 to 17 years of age. Obes Res 9, 754762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Huerta, M, Gdalevich, M, Tlashadze, A et al. (2007) Appropriateness of US and international BMI-for-age reference curves in defining adiposity among Israeli school children. Eur J Pediatr 166, 573578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Abdulrazzaq, YM, Moussa, MA & Nagelkerke, N (2008) National growth charts for the United Arab Emirates. J Epidemiol 18, 295303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Fredriks, AM, van Buuren, S, Jeurissen, SE et al. (2004) Height, weight, body mass index and pubertal development references for children of Moroccan origin in The Netherlands. Acta Paediatr 93, 817824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Al Herbish, AS, El Mouzan, MI, Al Salloum, AA et al. (2009) Body mass index in Saudi Arabian children and adolescents: a national reference and comparison with international standards. Ann Saudi Med 29, 342347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Fredriks, AM, van Buuren, S, Jeurissen, SE et al. (2003) Height, weight, body mass index and pubertal development reference values for children of Turkish origin in the Netherlands. Eur J Pediatr 162, 788793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Al-Isa, AN (2004) Body mass index, overweight and obesity among Kuwaiti intermediate school adolescents aged 10–14 years. Eur J Clin Nutr 58, 12731277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Cohen, J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70, 213220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Landis, JR & Koch, GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Butte, NF, Garza, C & de Onis, M (2007) Evaluation of the feasibility of international growth standards for school-aged children and adolescents. J Nutr 137, 153157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Sakamoto, N & Yang, L (2009) BMI centile curves for Japanese children aged 5–17 years in 2000–2005. Public Health Nutr 12, 16881692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Baya Botti, A, Perez-Cueto, FJ, Vasquez Monllor, PA et al. (2010) International BMI-for-age references underestimate thinness and overestimate overweight and obesity in Bolivian adolescents. Nutr Hosp 25, 428436.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Kulaga, Z, Litwin, M, Tkaczyk, M et al. (2010) The height-, weight-, and BMI-for-age of Polish school-aged children and adolescents relative to international and local growth references. BMC Public Health 10, 109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Matusik, P, Malecka-Tendera, E & Klimek, K (2007) Nutritional state of Polish prepubertal children assessed by population-specific and international standards. Acta Paediatr 96, 276280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Wang, Y & Wang, JQ (2000) Standard definition of child overweight and obesity worldwide. Authors’ standard compares well with WHO standard. BMJ 321, 1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Khasnutdinova, SL & Grjibovski, AM (2010) Prevalence of stunting, underweight, overweight and obesity in adolescents in Velsk district, north-west Russia: a cross-sectional study using both international and Russian growth references. Public Health 124, 392397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Summary of anthropometric data for study participants

Figure 1

Table 2 Prevalence estimates for underweight, healthy weight status, overweight and obesity using four different approaches (n 499)

Figure 2

Table 3 Extent of agreement between the different approaches