Skip to main content

Table 2 Obesity prevalence rate (%, and 95 CI) by migration status

From: Within-country migration and obesity dynamics: analysis of 94,783 women from the Peruvian demographic and health surveys

Year Rural stayers Intra-rural migrants Urban to rural migrants Urban stayers Intra-urban migrants Rural to urban migrants
2005 6.7 6.6 11.8 13.7 17.0 15.2
[5.2–8.3] [3. 5–9. 8] [8.45–15.2] [12.2–15.1] [14.7–19.1] [10.9–19.3]
2007 7.6 8.6 10.2 15.0 20.8 21.6
[6.0–9.2] [5.6–11.5] [6.67–13.6] [13.5–16.3] [18.6–22.9] [18.2–24.9]
2008 7.7 11.8 11.6 13.9 19.0 20.4
[6.6–8.9] [9.4–14.1] [9.18–14.0] [13.0–14.7] [17.6–20.4] [18.0–22.6]
2009 8.5 11.3 14.5 16.5 18.6 20.1
[7.6–9.5] [9.5–13.0] [12.4–16.5] [15.7–17.2] [17.5–19.6] [18.2–21.9]
2011 9.3 12.8 14.3 17.5 18.7 25.1
[8.3–10.4] [11.0–14.6] [12.2–16.4] [16.7–18.3] [17.6–19.7] [23.2–26.9]
2012 9.8 13.0 15.3 18.8 20.5 21.0
[8.7–10.8] [11.2–14.7] [13.2–17.2] [18.0–19.6] [19.4–21.5] [19.3–22.7]
2012 vs 2005 increasea 46.3% 97% 37.2% 20.6% 38.2%
  1. aThese increases are calculated with respect to 2005 values. Figures not calculated for urban-to-rural migrants because confidence intervals for 2012 and 2005 overlap