Typology of families living in urban areas and obesity: one family does not fit all

Andrade, Roseli

Typology of families living in urban areas and obesity: one family does not fit all

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Exhibit hall (Dena'ina Center)

Roseli Andrade, PhD , Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Dário Costa, BA , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Stephanie Bispo, MD , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Cynthia Ramos, BA , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Priscila Reis, BA , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Otaviana Chaves, MD , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

César Xavier, PhD , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Fernando Proietti, PhD , Belo Horizonte Observatory for Urban Health/UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Maria Isabel Correia, PhD , Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Amélia Friche, PhD , Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Waleska Caiaffa, PhD , Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of overweight is increasing alarmingly among adolescents and may cluster in families due to social and lifestyle characteristics. This study aims to build a score to identify family profiles that may be related to obesity.

METHODS: Using data from a population-based household survey data randomly clustered in three stages in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, (census tracts, households and residents). We created eleven domains to characterize profiles of healthy and unhealthy family. Information obtained from interviews from one adult (≥18 yo) and one adolescent (11-17yo) at the same household were paired (1042 pairs of observations). The following domains were created according to a theoretical model of obesity: D1. Pattern of family meal, D2. Relationships between adolescent and family, D3. High risk behavior of family, D4. Wellbeing satisfaction of the family, D5. Family self perception of health D6. Physical active household, D7. Sedentary behavior of family, D8. Educational level of family, D9. Family with preventive health attitudes, D10. Chronic conditions in the family and D11. Food insecurity in the household. Eleven scores were constructed and evaluated by Cronbach’s α.

RESULTS: Each domain had 1-10 itens, on average of 5 itens and Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.30 to 0.76. Discriminant analysis using Body Mass Index-BMI (normal weight -BMI between 3 and 85 percentile and obese -BMI ≥ percentile 97) correctly classify 90.2% of adolescents in two groups of families: healthy and unhealthy with type I error of 2.2%. The domains of D10 (Chronic conditions in the family), D5 (Family self perception of health), D8 (Educational level of family) and D3 (High risk behavior of family) showed to discriminate better nutritional status.

CONCLUSIONS: The score constructed seems to discriminate profiles of “obesogenic” family, those with unhealthy profile related to adolescent overweight suggesting that family typology may help to direct specific interventions.