How to classify BMI among pregnant adolescents? A prospective cohort

Bibliographic Data

ID15092007
AuthorsMaira Pinho-Pompeu, Maira Pinho‐Pompeu (0000-0002-8905-5870, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)), Daiane Sofia Moraes Paulino, Daiane Sofia Morais Paulino (0000-0002-6365-5608, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)), Sirlei Siani Morais (Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)), Marina Yumi Crubelatti (Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)), João Luiz Pinto e Silva (Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)), Fernanda Garanhani Surita (0000-0003-4335-0337, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume22
Issue2
Pages265-272
Publication date2019-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePublic Health Nutrition (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1368-9800 • E-ISSN: 1475-2727
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1368980018002768
PMID30378516
OpenAlexW2898822663
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited22

Objective Pregnancy in adolescence is a global health issue, especially in developing countries. Additionally, the recommended gestational weight gain (GWG) is usually based on pre-pregnancy BMI and that might be complex for pregnant teens. The study objective was to compare three different methods of BMI classification and suggest the best way of determining pre-pregnancy BMI and monitoring GWG among pregnant adolescents. Design Pre-pregnancy weight, weight at first prenatal visit, height, sociodemographic, reproductive and perinatal data were collected. Weighted kappa and McNemar statistics were used to assess agreement between the classification methods. Setting Prof. Dr Jose Aristodemo Pinotti Women’s Hospital, University of Campinas, Brazil. Participants Primiparas younger than 19 years of age and with less than 20 weeks of gestational age ( n 150). Results BMI of the primiparas was determined according to the WHO recommendation for adult women, the Child Growth Standards (CGS) and their gynaecological age (GA). The WHO and GA measurements presented a strong agreement with each other ( κ w =0·99; 95 % CI 0·97, 1·00), but did not agree with the CGS classification ( κ w =0·62; 95 % CI 0·50, 0·74 by WHO; κ w =0·62; 95 % CI 0·51, 0·74 by GA). Also, inadequate GWG was observed in 72·2 % of cases and was correlated with a higher rate of caesarean birth. Conclusions BMI classification according to the CGS differed from WHO and GA. However, CGS and WHO agreed on perinatal outcomes. We recommend using BMI classification by WHO to assess pregnant adolescents, since it is easily applied and better known among health professionals

Birth weight · Body mass index · Body weight · Cohort · Gestation · Gestational age · McNemar's test · Obesity · Obstetrics · Overweight · Pregnancy · Prospective cohort study · Weight gain · Birth, Development, and Health · Demography · Gestational Diabetes Research and Management · Medicine · Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies · Internal Medicine · Pediatrics

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access