Self-measured vs professionally measured waist circumference

Barbara G. Carranza Leon, Michael Dennis Jensen, Jennifer J. Hartman, Teresa B. Jensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)262-266
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of Family Medicine
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Waist Circumference
Accidental Falls
Body Mass Index
Outpatients
Biomedical Research

Keywords

  • Anthropometrics
  • Metabolic syndrome
  • Obesity
  • Practice-based research
  • Primary care
  • Risk assessment
  • Waist circumference

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Self-measured vs professionally measured waist circumference. / Carranza Leon, Barbara G.; Jensen, Michael Dennis; Hartman, Jennifer J.; Jensen, Teresa B.

In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 3, 01.05.2016, p. 262-266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carranza Leon, Barbara G. ; Jensen, Michael Dennis ; Hartman, Jennifer J. ; Jensen, Teresa B. / Self-measured vs professionally measured waist circumference. In: Annals of Family Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 262-266.
@article{ef3d3c38d2cc4bc9805e50d86be956f4,
title = "Self-measured vs professionally measured waist circumference",
abstract = "PURPOSE Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52{\%} of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57{\%} and 18{\%} of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84{\%} of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23{\%} and 16{\%} of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20{\%} for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.",
keywords = "Anthropometrics, Metabolic syndrome, Obesity, Practice-based research, Primary care, Risk assessment, Waist circumference",
author = "{Carranza Leon}, {Barbara G.} and Jensen, {Michael Dennis} and Hartman, {Jennifer J.} and Jensen, {Teresa B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1370/afm.1896",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "262--266",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Self-measured vs professionally measured waist circumference

AU - Carranza Leon, Barbara G.

AU - Jensen, Michael Dennis

AU - Hartman, Jennifer J.

AU - Jensen, Teresa B.

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - PURPOSE Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.

AB - PURPOSE Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.

KW - Anthropometrics

KW - Metabolic syndrome

KW - Obesity

KW - Practice-based research

KW - Primary care

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Waist circumference

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969256445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969256445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1370/afm.1896

DO - 10.1370/afm.1896

M3 - Article

C2 - 27184997

AN - SCOPUS:84969256445

VL - 14

SP - 262

EP - 266

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 3

ER -