Dataset Information

Ethnic differences in the self-recognition of obesity and obesity-related comorbidities: a cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Obesity and its related co-morbidities place a huge burden on the health care system. Patients who know they are obese may better control their weight or seek medical attention. Self-recognition may be affected by race/ethnicity, but little is known about racial/ethnic differences in knowledge of obesity's health risks.

Objective

To examine awareness of obesity and attendant health risks among US whites, Hispanics and African-Americans.

Design

Cross-sectional self-administered survey.

Participants

Adult patients at three general medical clinics and one cardiology clinic.

Main measures

Thirty-one questions regarding demographics, height and weight, and perceptions and attitudes regarding obesity and associated health risks. Multiple logistic regression was used to quantify the association between ethnicity and obesity awareness, controlling for socio-demographic confounders.

Key results

Of 1,090 patients who were offered the survey, 1,031 completed it (response rate 95%); a final sample size of 970 was obtained after exclusion for implausible BMI, mixed or Asian ethnicity. Mean age was 47 years; 64% were female, 39% were white, 39% Hispanic and 22% African-American; 48% were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)). Among obese subjects, whites were more likely to self-report obesity than minorities (adjusted proportions: 95% of whites vs. 84% of African-American and 86% of Hispanics, P = 0.006). Ethnic differences in obesity recognition disappeared when BMI was >35 kg/m(2). African-Americans were significantly less likely than whites or Hispanics to view obesity as a health problem (77% vs. 90% vs. 88%, p < 0.001); African-Americans and Hispanics were less likely than whites to recognize the link between obesity and hypertension, diabetes and heart disease. Of self-identified obese patients, 99% wanted to lose weight, but only 60% received weight loss advice from their health care provider.

Conclusions

African-Americans and Hispanics are significantly less likely to self report obesity and associated health risks. Educational efforts may be necessary, especially for patients with BMIs between 30 and 35.

SUBMITTER: Sivalingam SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3101976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of obesity and its related comorbidities among patients being actively managed at a US academic medical centre, and to examine the frequency of a formal diagnosis of obesity, via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) documentation among patients with body mass index (BMI) ?30?kg/m2.DesignThe electronic health record system at Cleveland Clinic was used to create a cross-sectional summary of actively managed patients meeting minimum primary care physician visit frequency requirements. Eligible patients were stratified by BMI categories, based on most recent weight and median of all recorded heights obtained on or before the index date of 1July 2015. Relationships between patient characteristics and BMI categories were tested.SettingA large US integrated health system.ResultsA total of 324?199 active patients with a recorded BMI were identified. There were 121?287 (37.4%) patients found to be overweight (BMI ?25?and <29.9), 75?199 (23.2%) had BMI 30-34.9, 34?152 (10.5%) had BMI 35-39.9 and 25?137 (7.8%) had BMI ?40. There was a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease (P value<0.0001) within higher BMI compared with lower BMI categories. In patients with a BMI >30 (n=134?488), only 48% (64 056) had documentation of an obesity ICD-9 code. In those patients with a BMI >40, only 75% had an obesity ICD-9 code.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional summary from a large US integrated health system found that three out of every four patients had overweight or obesity based on BMI. Patients within higher BMI categories had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. Less than half of patients who were identified as having obesity according to BMI received a formal diagnosis via ICD-9 documentation. The disease of obesity is very prevalent yet underdiagnosed in our clinics. The under diagnosing of obesity may serve as an important barrier to treatment initiation.

Project description:BackgroundEstonian and Russian ethnic groups in Estonia differ from one another in several aspects, such as historic and socio-economic background, language and culture. The aim of the current study was to examine ethnic differences in cancer incidence in Estonia, and to compare the situation before and after the profound political and economical changes in the early 1990s.MethodsTwo cross-sectional unlinked census-based cancer incidence analyses were performed. Cancer incidence data were obtained from the Estonian Cancer Registry. Population denominators came from the population censuses of 1989 and 2000. Standardized cancer incidence rates were calculated for men and women for the aggregate periods 1988-1990 and 1999-2000. Differences in cancer incidence between Estonians and Russians in 1989 and 2000 were estimated for both sexes, using standardized rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsIn 1988-1990, the total cancer incidence in Russian men was higher than that in Estonian men (SRR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.19-1.34). In 1999-2000, the total cancer incidence in men showed only slightly higher estimates in Russians than in Estonians (SRR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.99-1.32). Cancers of stomach, colon and lung had persisting higher values in Russian men in 1999-2000. In women, the differences were smaller than in men, and the total cancer incidence showed no differences relating to neither of the time periods studied. With regard to specific sites, excess of stomach cancer incidence was seen in Russian women (SRR = 1.45, 95%CI = 1.15-1.81). The ethnic differences in general decreased between the two time periods studied.ConclusionSome of the differences in cancer rates between the Estonians and Russians in Estonia are likely to be attributable to the variation in exposure to specific etiologic factors that are causedby differences in lifestyle and habits, such as hygiene, smoking and drinking. Further research with a view to understanding these ethnic differences in cancer incidence is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine.FindingsThe total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]).InterpretationThis study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness.FundingDIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).