4.6 Article

The prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity among Lithuanian adults, 1994-2012

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 128, Issue 1, Pages 91-95

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.10.010

Keywords

Obesity; Overweight; Trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess trends in body mass index (BMI) and in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among Lithuanian adults between 1994 and 2012. Study design: The data were obtained from ten biennial cross-sectional surveys of Lithuanian Health Behaviour Monitoring. For every survey, a nationally representative random sample aged 20-64 was drawn from the National Population Register. Response rates ranged from 51% to 74%. In total, 7968 men and 10 695 women reported their weight and height. Methods: All surveys used the same methodology and questionnaires, which were sent by mail. Self-reported weight and height were used to calculate body mass index (BMI). Overweight was defined as BMI >= 25 kg/m(2) and obesity - as BMI >= 30 kg/m(2). Results: The most prominent increase in mean BMI was observed in the oldest age group (55 -64 years) of men. A decrease in mean BMI occurred in the youngest age groups (20-34 and 35-44 years) of women. The proportion of overweight men increased from 47.0% to 62.5%, and the proportion of obese men - from 10.6% to 19.0%. In women, the prevalence of obesity was similar in the first and in the last survey (19.0% and 20.5% respectively). Conclusions: Over the study period, the difference in the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased between the age groups, because of age-related trends. Our data emphasize the need for a national strategy for obesity prevention and control targeting the whole population, particularly men and older women. (C) 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available