4.7 Article

Association Between Body Mass Index and Suicide, and Suicide Attempt Among British Adults: The Health Improvement Network Database

期刊

OBESITY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 E334-E342

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.20143

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the associations between body mass index (BMI) and incidence rate (IR) of suicide attempt and suicide. Design and Methods: 849,434 British adults were identified from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database between January 2000 and October 2007. BMI was categorized into six levels: <18.5 (underweight), 18.5-24.9 (normal weight), 25.0-29.9 (overweight), 30.0-34.9, 35.0-39.9, and >= 40 (obese levels I-III). Results: We identified 3,111 suicide attempts by Read codes and 75 suicides with medical records. The overall IR of suicide attempt was 82.2 cases per 100,000 person-years. The IR decreased with BMI in men with depression (471.3-166.0 cases per 100,000 person-years, P for trend 0.02) and in men without depression (241.5-58.0 cases per 100,000 person-years, P for trend < 0.0001). In women with depression, an L-shaped relationship was observed, that is, a higher rate in underweight group when compared with reference group (503.2 vs. 282.7 per 100,000 person-years) and no significant differences in others (231.8-195.5 cases per 100,000 person-years). In women without depression, the IR was U-shaped with BMI (125.2 in underweight, 68.6 in reference, and 48.5-79.9 cases in overweight and obese I-III groups per 100,000 person-years, P for trend < 0.0001). The above trends remained after adjustment for the covariates. Regarding suicide, the overall IR was 2.0 cases per 100,000 person-years, which tended to decrease with BMI (P = 0.14). Conclusions: We concluded an inverse linear association between BMI and suicide attempt among men, an L-shaped association in nondepressive women, and a U-shaped association in depressive women were observed. The study also suggested an inverse linear tendency between BMI and suicide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据