Background Although previous systematic reviews considered the relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity, almost 200 peer-reviewed articles have been published since the last review on that topic, and this paper focuses specifically on education, which has different implications. Methods The authors systematically review the peer-reviewed literature from around the world considering the association between educational attainment and obesity. Databases from public health and medicine, education, psychology, economics, and other social sciences were searched, and articles published in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were included. Results This paper includes 289 articles that report on 410 populations in 91 countries. The relationship between educational attainment and obesity was modified by both gender and the country's economic development level: an inverse association was more common in studies of higher-income countries and a positive association was more common in lower-income countries, with stronger social patterning among women. Relatively few studies reported on lower-income countries, controlled for a comprehensive set of potential confounding variables, and/or attempted to assess causality through the use of quasi-experimental designs. Conclusions Future research should address these gaps to understand if the relationship between educational attainment and obesity may be causal, thus supporting education policy as a tool for obesity prevention.

No abstract

Self-reported maternal weight is error-prone, and the context of pregnancy may impact error distributions. This systematic review summarizes error in self-reported weight across pregnancy and assesses implications for bias in associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar through November 2015 for peer-reviewed articles reporting accuracy of self-reported, pregnancy-related weight at four time points: prepregnancy, delivery, over gestation and postpartum. Included studies compared maternal self-report to anthropometric measurement or medical report of weights. Sixty-two studies met inclusion criteria. We extracted data on magnitude of error and misclassification. We assessed impact of reporting error on bias in associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. Women underreported prepregnancy (PPW: -2.94 to -0.29 kg) and delivery weight (DW: -1.28 to 0.07 kg), and over-reported gestational weight gain (GWG: 0.33 to 3 kg). Magnitude of error was small, ranged widely, and varied by prepregnancy weight class and race/ethnicity. Misclassification was moderate (PPW: 0-48.3%; DW: 39.0-49.0%; GWG: 16.7-59.1%), and overestimated some estimates of population prevalence. However, reporting error did not largely bias associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. Although measured weight is preferable, self-report is a cost-effective and practical measurement approach. Future researchers should develop bias correction techniques for self-reported pregnancy-related weight.

This is one of the first surveys of a USA-wide sample of full-time college students about their COVID-19erelated experiences in spring 2020. Methods: We surveyed 725 full-time college students aged 18e22 years recruited via Instagram promotions on April 25e30, 2020. We inquired about their COVID-19erelated experiences and perspectives, documented opportunities for transmission, and assessed COVID-19's perceived impacts to date. Results: Thirty-five percent of participants experienced any COVID-19erelated symptoms from February to April 2020, but less than 5% of them got tested, and only 46% stayed home exclusively while experiencing symptoms. Almost all (95%) had sheltered in place/stayed primarily at home by late April 2020; 53% started sheltering in place before any state had an official stay-at-home order, and more than one-third started sheltering before any metropolitan area had an order. Participants were more stressed about COVID-19's health implications for their family and for American society than for themselves. Participants were open to continuing the restrictions in place in late April 2020 for an extended period of time to reduce pandemic spread. Conclusions: There is substantial opportunity for improved public health responses to COVID-19 among college students, including for testing and contact tracing. In addition, because most participants restricted their behaviors before official stay-at-home orders went into effect, they may continue to restrict movement after stay-at-home orders are lifted, including when colleges reopen for in-person activities, if they decide it is not yet prudent to circulate freely. The public health, economic, and educational implications of COVID-19 are continuing to unfold; future studies must continue to monitor college student experiences and perspectives.