BMI Report for Sampled CCSD Students: 2010 ‐ 2013 BMI Report for Sampled CCSD Students: 2010 2013 Michael Tsai, MPH February 21, 2014
Legislative History 2003 – Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 13 directed the Legislative • Committee on Health Care’s Subcommittee to conduct an interim C itt H lth C ’ S b itt t d t i t i study of the Medical and Societal Costs and Impacts of Obesity in Nevada. 2007 Assembly Bill 354 required the collection of height and 2007 – Assembly Bill 354 required the collection of height and • weight data in a representative sample of Nevada students in 4th, 7th, 10th grades until June 30, 2010. 2009 – Assembly Bill 191 extended the period for data collection of • height and weight data beyond the sunset date to June 30, 2015 and also authorized a school district to conduct the examinations in other grade levels. 2013 2013 – Senate Bill 442 limits height and weight data collection to Senate Bill 442 limits height and weight data collection to • • school districts in a county whose population is 100,000 or more (currently Clark and Washoe Counties) and ends requirement on June 30, 2015.
Data Collection In Clark County Clark County School District (CCSD) chose to collect measurements • on a sample of its students within these grade levels due to the l f it t d t ithi th d l l d t th large population size of its student body. Data was collected from a convenience sample on the heights and • weights of 4th 7th and 10th graders weights of 4th, 7th, and 10th graders. Using a sample methodology provided by Nevada State Health • Division (NSHD), a total of 19 schools (12 elementary, 4 middle, and 3 high schools) were selected to participate. AB 354 was an unfunded mandate – school nurses were chosen to • collect data on sampled students without financial support for additional staff, placing additional burden on existing responsibilities and resources responsibilities and resources.
BMI Percentile The following example demonstrates how sample BMI numbers would be interpreted for a 10 ‐ The following example demonstrates how sample BMI numbers would be interpreted for a 10 year ‐ old boy:
Weight Status, 2010 ‐ 2011 School Year 45.0% 40.0% 40 0% 40.0% 33.2% 35.0% 30.0% 22.9% 25.0% 18.2% 18.0% 20.0% 15 0% 15.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5 0% 5.0% 0.0% Overweight or Obese Overweight Obese CCSD NHANES
Weight Status by gender, 2010 ‐ 2011 School Year 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 26.3% 30.0% 19.6% Obese 25.0% 16.5% 19.8% O Overweight i ht 20.0% 15.0% 10 0% 10.0% 18.4% 17.6% 15.9% 14.2% 5.0% 0 0% 0.0% CCSD NHANES CCSD NHANES Males Females
Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) • Established a “Prevention First” position responsible for coordinating screenings with schools. • Developed a more robust data collection protocol and conducted trainings for CCSD staff involved in data conducted trainings for CCSD staff involved in data collection. • Secured standardized equipment for data collection: scales and stadiometers. scales and stadiometers • Funding was used solely to improve data quality. • No schools were added and the sampling strategy p g gy remained the same. • CCSD nursing staff was still responsible for data collection collection.
CPPW Data, 2011 ‐ 2012 School Year 50.0% 43.0% 45.0% 40.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 24.0% 22.9% 25.0% 19.0% 18.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% Overweight or Obese Overweight Obese 2010 11 2010 ‐ 11 2011 12 2011 ‐ 12
CPPW Data, 2011 ‐ 2012 School Year 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 28.1% % 26.3% 30.0% 19.4% 19.6% Obese 25.0% O Overweight i ht 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10 0% 20 0% 20.0% 18.4% 18.1% 17.6% 5.0% 0 0% 0.0% 2010 ‐ 11 2011 ‐ 12 2010 ‐ 11 2011 ‐ 12 Males Females
Sampled CCSD Students 2010 ‐ 2013 30.0% 24.0% 25.0% 23.7% 23.2% Overweight 20.0% 19.0% 18.5% 17 5% 17.5% Ob Obese 15.0% 10 0% 10.0% 2010 ‐ 11 2011 ‐ 12 2012 ‐ 13
Sampled CCSD Students 2010 ‐ 2013 55.0% 49.7% 50.0% 48.0% 46.8% 45.0% White, NH 41.9% Black, NH 39 3% 39.3% 39.0% 40.0% Hispanic 34.7% 34.5% 34.4% 34.4% 35 0% 35.0% 30 0% 30.0% 2010 ‐ 11 2011 ‐ 12 2012 ‐ 13
Weight Status by gender, 2012 ‐ 2013 School Year 60.0% 50.0% 40 0% 40.0% 33.4% 23.3% Obese 30.0% 20 3% 20.3% Overweight O i ht 14.0% 14 0% 20.0% 10.0% 19.4% 18.6% 17.4% 15.8% 0 0% 0.0% White, NH Hispanic White, NH Hispanic Males Females
Self ‐ reported vs. Measured data, 2011 ‐ 2012 BMI Classification l ifi i White or hi Black or African l k f i Hispanic i i Caucasian (NH) American (NH) CCSD YRBSS CCSD YRBSS CCSD YRBSS Overweight/Obese h / b 32.9% 20.8% 41.0% 35.9% 48.3% 33.2% Overweight g 12.9% 18.7% 19.4% 15.3% 17.0% 20.0% Obese 17.6% 7.9% 24.0% 17.2% 28.3% 13.8%
Benefits of BMI Surveillance • Measured data is generally more accurate and g y reliable compared to self ‐ reported data. • School based BMI surveillance programs can increase parental awareness of weight risk in increase parental awareness of weight risk in children. • Identify demographic or geographic subgroups at Identify demographic or geographic subgroups at greatest risk of obesity to target prevention and treatment programs. • Monitor and evaluate obesity related M i d l b i l d grant/funding objectives and school ‐ based programs. p g
Questions Michael Tsai, MPH Ch Chronic Disease Epidemiologist i i id i l i 702 ‐ 759 ‐ 1387 tsai@snhdmail.org
Recommend
More recommend
