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