BMI Measurement in Schools

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: School-based BMI measurement has attracted attention across the nation as a potential approach to address obesity among youth. However, little is known about its impact or effectiveness in changing obesity rates or related physical activity and dietary behaviors that influence obesity. This article describes current BMI-measurement programs and practices, research, and expert recommendations and provides guidance on implementing such an approach. METHODS:An extensive search for scientific articles, position statements, and current state legislation related to BMI-measurement programs was conducted. A literature and policy review was written and presented to a panel of experts. This panel, comprising experts in public health, education, school counseling, school medical care, and parenting, reviewed and provided expertise on this article. RESULTS:School-based BMI-measurement programs are conducted for surveillance or screening purposes. Thirteen states are implementing school-based BMI-measurement programs as required by legislation. Few studies exist that assess the utility of these programs in preventing increases in obesity or the effects these programs may have on weight-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of youth and their families. Typically, expert organizations support schoolbased BMI surveillance; however, controversy exists over screening. BMI screening does not currently meet all of the American Academy of Pediatrics' criteria for determining whether screening for specific health conditions should be implemented in schools.CONCLUSION: Schools initiating BMI-measurement programs should adhere to safeguards to minimize potential harms and maximize benefits, establish a safe and supportive environment for students of all body sizes, and implement science-based strategies to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Pediatrics 2009;124:S89-S97

Surveillance Systems to Track and Evaluate Obesity Prevention Efforts

“…Schoolbased surveillance systems, which typically span entire states, offer several advantages. Because a majority of US children attend schools, most children can be reached through this setting; obesity measurements can be incorporated into other school-based screenings; and school-level obesity data can be used to evaluate specific school-based policy changes and programs, as well as to identify subgroups at greatest risk of obesity (69,78,79). BMI data are often collected as part of an overall physical fitness assessment, such as FITNESSGRAM R (109); however, data from physical fitness assessments can be more variable and subject to error compared with standard surveillance measures (62).…”

“…Often, school-based assessments provide population data, as well as individual screening, i.e., notifying parents if their children are overweight or obese. Screening at school can be problematic, though, because of parent confusion about BMI categories and the lack of community resources for referrals (78). To date, legislation mandating some form of BMI surveillance and/or screening programs has passed in 25 US states (86), although not all of these states have an active school-based surveillance program: A recent study found that only 14 states collect BMI data that can be used for public health surveillance, and 13 of those programs are school-based (5).…”

School-Based Body Mass Index Screening and Parental Notification in Late Adolescence: Evidence From Arkansas's Act 1220

“…Since Arkansas implemented its statewide BMI screening and reporting policy in 2003, eight other states have adopted similar BMI screening and parental reporting policies including Alabama, Massachusetts, and Ohio [14]. However, the justification for such programs and, more broadly, community-based strategies aimed at preventing obesity among adolescents, lacks a comprehensive and rigorous empirical basis [15,16].…”

The response of serum leptin, cortisol and zinc concentrations to concurrent training

“…30 The BMI value was calculated by dividing body weight in kg by the square of the height in meters (Kg/m 2 ). 31 The participants completed the AHA/ACSMAmerican College of Sports Medicine questionnaire which incorporated the risk stratification criteria for physical exercise participation. 28 In the second phase of data collection, the One Repetition Maximum (1RM) test was performed 32 aiming at the prescription and control of the intensity of the following exercises: supported rowing, leg press 45°, straight bench press, knee extensor, elbow extensor (HBM), knee flexor and elbow flexor (high-pulley).…”