PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Scholes, Shaun
AU  - Fat, Linda Ng
AU  - Moody, Alison
AU  - Mindell, Jennifer S
TI  - 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
AID  - 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270014
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.01.28.22270014
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/10/2022.01.28.22270014.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/10/2022.01.28.22270014.full
AB  - Objective Adults typically overestimate height and underestimate weight compared with directly measured values, and such misreporting varies by sociodemographic and health-related factors. Using self-reported and interviewer-measured height and weight, collected from the same participants, we aimed to develop a set of prediction equations to correct bias in self-reported height and weight, and assess whether this adjustment improved the accuracy of obesity prevalence estimates relative to those based only on self-report.Design Population-based cross-sectional study.Participants 38,942 participants aged 16+ (Health Survey for England 2011-16) with non-missing self-reported and interviewer-measured height and weight.Main outcome measures Comparisons between self-reported, interviewer-measured (gold standard) and corrected (based on prediction equations) body mass index (BMI: kg/m2) including (i) difference between means and obesity prevalence, and (ii) measures of agreement for BMI classification.Results On average, men overestimated height more than women (1.6 and 1.0cm, respectively; p<0.001), whilst women underestimated weight more than men (2.1 and 1.5kg, respectively; p<0.001). Underestimation of BMI was larger on average for women than for men (1.1 and 1.0kg/m2, respectively; p<0.001). Obesity prevalence based on self-reported BMI was 6.8 and 6.0 percentage points (pp) lower than that estimated using measured BMI for men and women, respectively. Corrected BMI (based on models containing all significant predictors of misreporting of height and weight) lowered underestimation of obesity to 0.8pp in both sexes and improved the sensitivity of being classified as obese over self-reported BMI by 15.0pp for men and 12.2pp for women. Results based on models using age alone as a predictor of misreporting were similar.Conclusions Compared with self-reported data, applying prediction equations improved the accuracy of obesity prevalence estimates and increased sensitivity of being classified as obese. Including additional sociodemographic variables does not add enough predictive power to justify the added complexity of including them in prediction equations.Strengths and limitations of the studyThe limitations of body mass index (BMI) calculated from self-reported values of height and weight are well known.Health examination surveys such as the Health Survey for England (HSE) enable study of reporting bias when they collect both self-report and directly measured data on height and weight from the same participants.This study used HSE 2011-16 data to derive a set of adjustments to self-reported height and weight based on linear regression models that estimated measured values of height and weight from self-reported values of height and weight, with additional corrections for sociodemographic and health-related factors predictive of misreporting.Corrected and measured BMI (the gold standard) were compared to quantify by how much obesity prevalence estimates were improved relative to those based on self-report data only.Prediction equations are specific to time, place, target population and methods of data collection. As such, these may not be applicable to surveys with more recent data, or different sociodemographic, health and self-reported anthropometric profiles.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe Health Survey for England was funded by NHS Digital. The authors are funded to conduct the annual HSE but this specific study was not funded. NHS Digital had no role in the analysis, interpretation of data, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript for this specific study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Health Survey for England datasets generated and analysed during the current study (age banding for participants) are available via the UK Data Service (UKDS: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/), subject to their end user license agreement.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe HSE datasets generated and analysed during the current study (age banding for participants) are available via the UK Data Service (UKDS: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/), subject to their end user license agreement. https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/ AbbreviationsBMIbody mass indexHSEHealth Survey for England;PPpercentage points;SDstandard deviation