Effects of body size and sociodemographic characteristics on differences between self-reported and measured anthropometric data in middle-aged men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk study

Abstract

Background/Objectives: To investigate the effects of body size and sociodemographic characteristics on differences between self-reported (SR) and measured anthropometric data in men and women. Subjects/Methods: This study comprises 9933 men and 11 856 women aged 39-79 years at baseline survey (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997) in the EPIC-Norfolk study (Norfolk arm of the European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Study). The effects of sex, measured height, weight, age group, educational level and social class on differences between SR and measured weight, height, body mass index (BMI), waist, hip and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) were examined. Results: There were systematic differences between SR and measured anthropometric measurements by sex, measured height, weight and sociodemographic characteristics. Height was overestimated in both sexes while weight, waist, hip, and consequently, BMI and WHR were underestimated. Being male, shorter, heavier, older, and having no educational qualifications and manual occupation were independently associated with overreporting of height, and underreporting of weight was associated independently with being female, shorter, heavier, younger age, and higher education level and social class. Underreporting of waist circumference was strongly associated with being female and higher measured waist circumference, while underreporting of hip circumference was associated with being male and higher measured hip circumference. Furthermore, there was substantial degree of misclassification of BMI and waist circumference categories for both general and central obesity associated with SR data. Conclusions: These findings suggest that errors in SR anthropometric data, especially waist and hip circumference are influenced by actual body size as well as sociodemographic characteristics. These systematic differences may influence associations between SR anthropometric measures and health outcomes in epidemiological studies.

Main nutrient patterns are associated with prospective weight change in adults from 10 European countries

“…To mitigate this potential source of bias, we used a prediction equation to improve self-reported weight estimates [21]. Furthermore, in the EPIC Norfolk study, a subcohort of EPIC, a high correlation between self-reported and measured weight data has been shown (r = 0.97 in men and r = 0.98 in women), which means that ranking of participants according to self-reported weight was good [33]. In the two centers with measured weight at followup (Doetinchem and Norfolk), observed associations were in the same direction as overall with only a few exceptions (Online Resource 1) adding confidence to our findings.…”

Validity of self-reported anthropometry in adult Mexican women

“…4 In addition, the validity of waist and hip circumferences have seldom been evaluated, resulting in lower correlations between self-reported and direct measurements (ranging from 0.62 to 0.89). 2,5,8,9 The Mexican Teachers' Cohort (MTC), also known as ESMaestras (Spanish acronym), is an ongoing prospective study aimed at evaluating the relationship of dietary and lifestyle factors and chronic diseases. As the largest cohort study in Latin-America and among Hispanics, the MTC offers a unique sample from which to assess the validity of self-reported anthropometry among Mexican women due to its large sample size, wide age range (25 to 84 years at enrollment) and the economically and culturally diverse origin of participants.…”

The association of lifetime alcohol use with measures of abdominal and general adiposity in a large-scale European cohort

“…Information on lifetime use of alcoholic beverages was not available for the study centres in Naples (Italy), Bilthoven (The Netherlands), Sweden and Norway (n ¼ 116 149). We also excluded the health conscious part of the Oxford cohort (Great Britain) (n ¼ 47 651; 85% of the British cohort)) and the French cohort (n ¼ 51 267), as anthropometry was self-reported (Park et al, 2011). Therefore, 258 177 (99 381 men and 158 796 women) participants from Denmark (Aarhus, Copenhagen), Germany (Heidelberg, Potsdam), Greece, Italy (Florence, Varese, Ragusa, Turin), The Netherlands (Utrecht), Spain (Asturias, Granada, Murcia, Navarra, San Sebastian) and the United Kingdom (Cambridge, Oxford), representing 50% of the original cohort, were eligible for this analysis.…”