↓ Skip to main content

Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience
Published in
Archives of Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13690-018-0255-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Drieskens, S. Demarest, S. Bel, K. De Ridder, J. Tafforeau

Abstract

Based on successive Health Interview Surveys (HIS), it has been demonstrated that also in Belgium obesity, measured by means of a self-reported body mass index (BMI in kg/m2), is a growing public health problem that needs to be monitored as accurately as possible. Studies have shown that a self-reported BMI can be biased. Consequently, if the aim is to rely on a self-reported BMI, adjustment is recommended. Data on measured and self-reported BMI, derived from the Belgian Food Consumption Survey (FCS) 2014 offers the opportunity to do so. The HIS and FCS are cross-sectional surveys based on representative population samples. This study focused on adults aged 18-64 years (sample HIS = 6545 and FCS = 1213). Measured and self-reported BMI collected in FCS were used to assess possible misreporting. Using FCS data, correction factors (measured BMI/self-reported BMI) were calculated in function of a combination of background variables (region, gender, educational level and age group). Individual self-reported BMI of the HIS 2013 were then multiplied with the corresponding correction factors to produce a corrected BMI-classification. When compared with the measured BMI, the self-reported BMI in the FCS was underestimated (mean 0.97 kg/m2). 28% of the obese people underestimated their BMI. After applying the correction factors, the prevalence of obesity based on HIS data significantly increased (from 13% based on the original HIS data to 17% based on the corrected HIS data) and approximated the measured one derived from the FCS data. Since self-reported calculations of BMI are underestimated, it is recommended to adjust them to obtain accurate estimates which are important for decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 27%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,698,342
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#202
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,784
of 445,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.