Abstract
Background Weight perception may differ by ethnicity but is not well-understood, particularly among migrants to the United Kingdom (UK). It is also unknown whether a figure rating scale (FRS) or perceived weight question (PWQ) is more accurate for assessing body weight perception.
Methods At 24-months postpartum, women in the Born in Bradford cohort (Bradford, UK) completed the 9-item Stunkard FRS and a 7-category PWQ. Both scales were condensed to weight categories representing the World Health Organisation cut-offs. Weighted kappa statistics assessed agreement between measured and perceived weight categories. χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests assessed categories of misperception by ethnicity and migration and logistic regression was used to examine odds of underestimation.
Results Thirty percent of white British and 23% of Pakistani-origin women had obesity. Agreement between measured and perceived weight categories were similar for white British women using either a visual scale or weight question (FRS: κ [95%CI]: 0.61 [0.56, 0.65]; PWQ: 0.61 [0.55, 0.68)]. Overall agreement was lower for Pakistani-origin women with the visual scale performing better (FRS (0.58 [0.52, 0.63]) vs PWQ (0.47 [0.40, 0.54]). Pakistani-origin women, particularly those born outside the UK, were more likely to underestimate their body weight compared to white British women; this was greater with the PWQ (18% vs 10%; p<0.001) than FRS (14% vs 6%; p<0.001). Pakistani-origin women were 154% more likely to underestimate their body weight compared to white British women with the FRS and 111% more likely to underestimate when using the PWQ.
Conclusion We observed ethnic differences in weight misperception with Pakistani-origin women more likely to underestimate their weight compared to white British women. Our findings suggest visual scales, rather than perceived weight questions, are more appropriate for the self-assessment of body weight.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Born in Bradford has received funding from the Wellcome Trust [101597] a joint grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and UK Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC) [MR/N024391/1] the National Institute for Health Research under its Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber [NIHR200166]. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care or Wellcome Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the Bradford Research Ethics Committee (ref: 07/H1302/112)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
