Does the use of prediction equations to correct self-reported height and weight improve obesity prevalance estimates? A pooled cross-sectional analysis of Health Survey for England data

Study design and participants

The present study used HSE data on adults (aged 16y+) from all survey years between 2011 and 2016, when both self-reported and measured height and weight were collected. The HSE is a cross-sectional, general population survey of individuals living in private households, with a new sample each year randomly selected by address¹⁹. Data collection occurs throughout the year. The first stage is a health interview, including questions about sociodemographic factors, diagnosed health conditions, self-rated health, health-related lifestyle behaviours, and direct measurements of – and in 2011-2016, self-reported - height and weight. The second stage is a nurse-visit, including biophysical measurements. Interviews and nurse visits take place in the participants ‘ own homes. All adults in selected households were eligible (maximum 10); the percentage of eligible households participating ranged from 66% in 2011 to 59% in 2016. Participants gave verbal consent to be interviewed, visited by a nurse, and to have anthropometric measurements taken. Research ethics approval was obtained from relevant committees.

Self-reported height and weight were collected with the questions: “How tall are you without shoes?” and “How much do you weigh without clothes and shoes?” Height was reported in either metres or feet and inches; weight was reported in kilogrammes (kg) or stones and pounds. Height was measured using a portable stadiometer with a sliding head plate, a base plate and connecting rods marked with a measuring scale. Participants were asked to remove their shoes. One measurement (to the nearest even millimetre) was taken, with participants ‘ stretching to the maximum height and the head positioned in the Frankfort plane. For those not pregnant, a single weight measurement (to the nearest 100g; maximum 200kg) was recorded using Class III Seca scales; participants were asked to remove their shoes and any bulky clothing or heavy items in pockets, etc. No adjustment was made for the weight of clothing. Participants unable to stand or unsteady on their feet were not measured. Those who weighed 200+kg were asked for their estimated weight because the scales are inaccurate above this level: these two cases were included herein (measured weight set equal to reported weight) to avoid underestimating weight in the upper-tail. Participants were assigned missing values if they were considered by the interviewer to have unreliable measurements, e.g. those who were too stooped or wore excessive clothing. Participants were not told at the time of interview that their height and weight would be measured; however, given their informed consent, it is likely that they might have anticipated being measured subsequent to their report.

Analytical sample

All participants (n=49,817) were asked their height and weight soon after starting the interview, and the measurements took place near the end. As our aim was to study self-reporting bias, the analytical sample was limited to n=38,942 participants with non-missing self-reported and measured height and weight. The participants excluded was as follows: pregnant (n=471), missing self-report and measured data (n=1001), missing self-report but not measured data (n=2550), and missing measured but not self-report data (n=6853). Missing self-report and measured data on height and weight were primarily due to “don ‘t knows” and refusals, respectively.

Statistical analyses

Sensitivity analysis

We also examined predictive accuracy of equations derived using a simpler approach, based on linear regression models with the measured values of height and weight as the dependent variable and the self-reported values of height and weight plus age (in single-year bands but trimmed at 90y) as independent variables^10,26. Linear, quadratic and cubic terms were entered for self-reported height and weight, and linear and quadratic terms were entered for age. Each term was retained in the model (thereby included in the equation) irrespective of statistical significance to allow for possible associations in future datasets¹⁰. This approach (implemented using formulae based on HSE 2012-14 data) is currently used to correct self-reported values of height and weight in the ALS for monitoring levels of excess weight across English local authorities.

All analyses accounted for the complex survey design, incorporating survey non-response weights and geographical clustering. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 for two-tailed tests, with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. HSE datasets are available via the UK Data Service (www.ukdataservice.ac.uk)^27-32 and are subject to an end user license agreement. Dataset preparation was performed in SPSS v24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York); analysis was performed in Stata v17.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas).

Patient and public involvement

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research (which involves secondary analysis of existing data). The project was shaped by discussions with the HSE Steering Group, including representatives from various national government agencies and local authorities.

Comparing self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI

To compare self-reported and measured data, Table 1 presents the difference between means (height, weight, BMI) and prevalence (BMI categories). On average, men overestimated height more than women (difference: 1.6 and 1.0cm, respectively; p<0.001 for sex difference), whilst women underestimated weight more than men (difference: 2.1 and 1.5kg; p<0.001). Underestimation of BMI was slightly larger on average for women than for men (1.1 and 1.0kg/m²; p<0.001). About three-quarters of adults had self-reported BMI values within 2 units of measured BMI (data not shown); however, underestimation of BMI was greater in higher BMI categories (Supplementary Data Table S2). The Bland-Altman LOA show the range within which approximately 95% of the differences between self-reported and measured BMI would be expected to fall³³. The LOA for self-reported BMI was in the range of -4.6 to 2.5 BMI units for men and from -5.0 to 2.7 units for women (unweighted data; Supplementary Data Figure S1). For both sexes, the highest percentiles of BMI were lower for self-reported than for measured data, indicating more compressed distributions (Supplementary Data Table S3; Figure S2). The prevalence of overweight (including obesity) was 8.0 and 9.0 percentage points (pp) lower for self-reported than measured data for men and women, respectively. The equivalent figures for obesity were 6.8 and 6.0pp.

Using measured BMI as gold standard, 77% of men and 78% of women were correctly classified using self-reported BMI; the sensitivity of the self-reported obese category was 69% for men and 72% for women (Table 2). Of those classified as overweight (25.0-29.9kg/m²) based on self-reported BMI, 19% of men and 22% of women were classified as obese based on measured BMI.

Predicting measured height from self-reported height and other variables (split-sample A)

Among men, based on multivariable linear regression analysis (dependent variable: self-reported minus measured height), older age, lower educational status (O level or no qualifications vs. having a degree), being Asian (vs. White), living in the North East, the North West and the West Midlands (vs. the South East), and reporting bad/very bad general health (vs. good/very good) were associated with greater overestimation of height. For women, older age, lower educational status (O level or no qualifications vs. having a degree), living in the North West (vs. the South East), living in the most (vs. least) deprived areas, and being in the Black, Asian or mixed ethnic groups (vs. White) were associated with greater overestimation of height (Supplementary Data Table S4).

The regression coefficients (prediction equations) for the aforementioned variables based on the models with measured height as the dependent variable correct self-reported height upwards (positive signs) or downwards (negative signs) as appropriate (Table S4): e.g., compared with those in the White group, the predicted measured height from the self-reported height of participants in the Asian group is corrected downwards by 0.61cm (men) and 1.78cm (women). The reduced models contained age group only as a predictor of misreporting. The R-squared (proportion of variance in measured height explained by the independent variables) for both the full and reduced models were similar for men (88.6% and 88.5%, respectively) and for women (87.7% and 87.1%).

Predicting measured weight from self-reported weight and other variables (split-sample A)

For men, being an ex-regular or never (vs. current) smoker were associated with greater underestimation of weight; lower educational status (O level or no qualifications vs. having a degree) was associated with lower underestimation. For women, being an ex-regular or never (vs. current) smoker and being in the Black (vs. White) ethnic group were associated with greater underestimation of weight (Supplementary Data Table S5). Table S5 shows the prediction equations for deriving corrected values of weight: e.g. compared with current smokers, the predicted measured weight from the self-reported weight of never smokers was adjusted upwards by 0.65kg (men) and 0.18kg (women). The R-squared for both the full and reduced models were similar for men (94.3% for both models) and for women (95.1% for both models).

Assessing the predictive accuracy of the equations (split-sample B)

The prediction equations were applied to split-sample B to generate corrected values. Table 3 shows the means (height, weight, BMI) and percentages (BMI categories) for the self-reported, measured, and corrected values. In each case, corrected estimates were closer than self-reported estimates to measured estimates, and the difference in means between corrected and measured values were not significantly different from zero, with the exception of height for women (e.g. measured height was underestimated on average by 0.1cm in the full model (P=0.003; data not shown)). The LOA for corrected BMI was in the range of -2.9 to 2.9 BMI units for men and from -3.0 to 3.0 units for women (unweighted data; Supplementary Data Figure S3). For each set of data, Figure 1 plots mean height and weight by sex and age group.

Compared with measured BMI, obesity prevalence based on self-reported BMI was 6.5 and 5.2pp lower for men and women, respectively. The corresponding value for corrected BMI (full models) was 0.8pp for both sexes (Table 3; Figure 2). The prevalence of overweight (including obesity) was slightly overestimated (1.2% men; 0.4% women).

Table 4 shows the cross-tabulation of corrected (full models) and measured BMI categories. 83% of men and 84% of women were correctly classified. Sensitivity values of the obesity category based on self-reported BMI were 71% and 75% for men and women, respectively (data not shown). The sensitivity of obesity based on corrected BMI increased to 86% and 87% for men and women, respectively, an absolute improvement over self-reported data by 15.0 and 12.2pp. The corresponding sensitivities based on reduced models were similar (86% both sexes: data not shown). In contrast, sensitivity values in the normal weight category (18.5-24.9kg/m²) were higher for self-reported (91% men; 94% women) than corrected BMI (83% men; 89% women).

The results of linear regression analyses in which measured BMI was the predictor of error are shown in supplementary data (Table S6). The significantly negative slope for BMI (p<0.001 for both sexes) indicates that the differences between corrected and measured BMI showed a systematic, though smaller, bias in relation to measured BMI.

Sensitivity analyses

The fitted regression equations describing the relationship between self-reported and measured height and weight with age as the single continuous predictor of misreporting are shown as supplementary data (Tables S7-S8; Figure S4 plots mean height and weight by sex and age group). The difference in means between the corrected and measured values were not significantly different from zero with the exception of height for women; the sensitivity estimates for this simpler method yielded similar values to the equations described above (overweight (including obesity): 94% men and 93% women; obesity: 85% men and 86% women; Table S9).

Misreporting

In agreement with other studies¹¹, the present study showed that mean height was overestimated by self-report relative to measured height, and that mean weight was underestimated, resulting in a net underestimation of mean BMI. Our estimates for the difference between means in height, weight and BMI were within the range shown by systematic literature reviews^4,5. In agreement with other studies^9,11, we found that women underestimated weight more than men but that men overestimated height more than women. As reported elsewhere³⁴, we do not know whether the differences between self-reported and measured data arise due to participants ‘ lack of knowledge about their current height and weight or whether it is due to misreporting of information that is accurately known.

In agreement with other studies¹¹, the mean differences found in the present study between self-reported and measured data were moderate on average (around 1kg/m² for BMI). However, it is important to look beyond differences in means, as moderate differences on average can be accompanied by (i) a large degree of variability between individuals (shown by the SD of the difference between self-reported and measured data)⁴, (ii) a compression of the BMI distribution (shown by lower values at the highest percentiles for self-reported than for measured data)¹¹, and (iii) sizeable (downward bias) misclassification of BMI categories based on self-reported data due to such compression (e.g. shifting adults below the BMI cut-off of 30kg/m² for obesity), resulting in an underestimation of obesity prevalence¹¹. As reported elsewhere¹⁶, a large degree of misclassification can occur if a non-trivial number of adults have a moderate difference between self-reported and measured BMI at the margins of broadly defined BMI categories. The positively skewed distribution of BMI increases this effect.

Prediction equations

Our results were mainly in agreement with previous studies^9,16: developing prediction equations to correct self-reported height and weight by sociodemographic and health-related variables to more closely approximate measured values of height and weight is feasible. First, in our main analysis, corrected BMI reduced the underestimation of obesity prevalence compared with self-reported BMI⁹, but it remained underestimated (in absolute terms) by 0.8pp for both sexes. As found elsewhere¹⁶, measured BMI significantly predicted the difference between corrected and measured BMI, indicating that the systematic error in self-reported BMI was not eliminated by the prediction equations. The presence of such residual bias has been identified as a reason for not using equations to predict measured values of height and weight from self-reported values of height and weight⁷. However, the usefulness of prediction equations has been demonstrated by the ability to reduce considerably, although not eliminate, the differences between self-reported and measured anthropometrics across a few, easily gathered sociodemographic and health-related variables¹⁶, as well as increasing the sensitivity of obesity classification versus self-reported data⁸. Our results also showed that the prediction equations decreased sensitivity in the normal weight category: through erroneously shifting a proportion of normal weight participants to the overweight category, leading to slight overestimation of levels of excess weight. This finding was consistent with previous studies^9,20, and likely reflects higher levels of reporting accuracy of height and weight among normal weight adults.

Secondly, as elsewhere^8,9,25,35, our similar results based on full and reduced models, and those of a simpler approach predicting measured values directly from self-reported values and age, confirmed that no single model stood out as the best overall candidate, and that adding variables such as ethnic group and educational status to equations only marginally improved predictive accuracy (shown by similarity in R-squared and estimates of sensitivity). As reported elsewhere³⁶, differences between demographic subgroups in the difference between self-reported and measured mean weight may be explained to some extent by differences in measured weight: adjustment for weight in regression models therefore results in attenuation of subgroup differences³⁷. It may be reasonably concluded that including additional variables such as educational status and ethnic group does not add enough predictive power to the models to justify the added complexity of including them in prediction equations.

Strengths and limitations

Pooling data across six years ensured a sample size large enough to compare self-reported and measured height and weight overall and by various sociodemographic and health-related variables, and allowed splitting the data into training and test datasets. Using a regression-based approach we were able to correct for differences in misreporting of height and weight across various subgroups. Unlike other studies⁶, there was no time lapse between the collection of self-reported and measured height and weight, and consistent methodology was used in each survey. We used two approaches to develop prediction equations to enable researchers to evaluate for themselves whether either approach, and if so which, best suits their data and goals.

A study limitation is the sizeable number of participants excluded from our analyses due to missing data on height and weight. Our findings could be biased if complete cases were systematically different from those with missing data (e.g. if those who refused to be measured were more likely than those who did not refuse to underestimate their weight due at least partly to being heavier), and such bias could result in prediction equations that are inaccurate²⁰. To partially evaluate this bias we compared obesity prevalence based on self-reported BMI among those with and without measured BMI²⁵. Obesity prevalence via self-reported BMI was higher for those without measured BMI (22% men; 25% women) than for those with measured BMI (18% men; 19% women), indicating that heavier participants were less likely to agree to direct measurement²⁵. Furthermore, as in other studies, in developing the prediction equations we excluded a small but non-trivial number of participants with a large observed difference between self-reported and measured data: this exclusion may have limited the generalisability of our analyses to some extent. Such cases would be impossible to identify and exclude in surveys that collect self-report but not measured data¹³.

Other limitations include potentially relevant variables that we could not include in regression models due to not being available in all HSE years (e.g. physical activity; perceptions of weight). We also decided a priori to use age as a categorical rather than continuous variable in our main analysis. As only categorical age is now provided on publicly available HSE datasets (to preserve anonymity of participants), our approach enables researchers to easily replicate our results and revise/update equations accordingly. (Continuous age was used in our sensitivity analysis to replicate the approach used to correct self-reported height and weight in the ALS). Finally, although we showed no linear trend in misreporting, the prediction equations we have developed based on 2011-16 data might not be entirely applicable to more contemporaneous data. This might be the case if obesity prevalence has greatly increased or decreased, such that the composition of this group changed, and/or the social desirability of having a normal BMI increased or decreased. Changes in accuracy of home scales, or in the up-to-date knowledge of one ‘s own height and weight (e.g. if health-workers began to routinely measure height as part of BMI assessment, and relay that information to patients) could also affect the applicability of these equations to more recent data. Likewise, any potential increase in misreporting of weight associated with weight gain during the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g. due to fewer opportunities for outdoor physical activity) is not taken into account by the equations developed herein.

Our findings must also be interpreted with caution. It is likely that HSE 2011-16 participants might have anticipated that interviewers would take direct measurements of height and weight, resulting in more “truthful” reporting compared, for example, with a telephone interview where participants would not anticipate being measured¹⁰. Previous studies have shown that misreporting of height (except for older adults) and weight was smaller for in-house interviews compared with telephone interviews³⁵. More “truthful” reporting is associated with an underestimation of the differences between self-reported and measured height and weight³. Applying the prediction equations developed in the present study on surveys which collect height and weight data by telephone interviews or mailed questionnaires would likely underestimate obesity prevalence to a greater extent than shown herein. Finally, as cautioned elsewhere^9,11,20, prediction equations are specific to time, place, target population, and methods of data collection. We do not assume that these equations developed using HSE data are applicable to non-HSE samples with different sociodemographic, health and self-reported anthropometric profiles.