Skip to main content

Table 3 Predictors of size underestimation (feeling ‘too light’) among normal-weight adolescents (multivariate analysisc)

From: Misperception of weight status in the pacific: preliminary findings in rural and urban 11- to 16-year-olds of New Caledonia

 

Whole sample (n = 429)

Boys (n = 212)

Girls (n =217)

 

%a (n)

OR [95% CI]

p

%a (n)

OR [95% CI]

p

%a (n)

OR [95% CI]

p

Age (years)b

-

0.892 [0.730–1.089]

.261

-

0.813 [0.621–1.065]

.133

-

1.068 [0.778–1.468]

.683

Gender

 Female

19.4 (42)

1.00

 

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Male

17.9 (17)

0.810 [0.481–1.363]

.427

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ethnicity

 European

12.7 (21)

1.00

 

15.4 (12)

1.00

 

10.3 (9)

1.00

 

 Melanesian

22.5 (57)

1.682 [0.906–3.124]

.100

18.9 (24)

1.390 [0.568–3.398]

.470

26.2 (33)

1.989 [0.823–4.805]

.127

 Polynesian

18.2 (2)

1.590 [0.287–8.814]

.596

28.6 (2)

1.748 [0.258–11.836]

.567

-

nd

-

SES

 Higher

11.0 (16)

1.00

 

13.2 (10)

1.00

 

8.7 (6)

1.00

 

 Intermediate

21.5 (23)

2.122 [1.020–4.416]

.044

25.0 (15)

2.342 [0.888–6.174]

.085

17.0 (8)

2.017 [0.610–6.674)

.250

 Lower

23.2 (41)

2.137 [1.063–4.296]

.033

17.1 (13)

1.674 [0.588–4.760]

.334

27.7 (28)

2.723 [0.976–7.596]

.056

Residence

 Urban

12.0 (1)

1.00

 

18.5 (12)

1.00

 

5.0 (3)

1.00

 

 Rural

21.4 (65)

1.360 [0.638–2.901]

.426

17.7 (26)

0.603 [0.224–1.623]

.317

24.8 (39)

5.264 [1.287–21.532]

.021

Weight statusd

 Upper-normal weight

13.4 (38)

1.00

 

10.4 (14)

1.00

 

16.0 (24)

1.00

 

 Lower-normal weight

29.0 (42)

3.442 [2.025–5.851]

<.001

30.8 (24)

4.043 [1.893–8.634]

<.001

26.9 (18)

3.306 [1.489–7.338]

.003

  1. OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, SES socioeconomic status
  2. aIndicates the percentage of overweight participants in each group perceiving themselves to be too light
  3. bEntered into the model as a continuous variable
  4. cVariables in the models are: age (years), gender, ethnicity, SES, residence and weight status category
  5. nd: not determined due to small size of the subgroup
  6. d‘Lower normal weight’ and ‘upper normal weight’ category were subcategories of the normal weight category