It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate general practitioners’ (GPs’) assessment of potential overweight among children attending the five-year preventive child health examination (PCHE) by comparing their assessment of the children's weight-for-stature with overweight defined by body mass index (BMI) according to paediatric standard definitions. Design. A cross-sectional survey. Data were obtained from a questionnaire survey of children's health in general and their growth in particular. Setting. The five-year preventive child health examination (PCHE) in general practice in the Central Denmark Region. Subjects. Children attending the five-year PCHE in general practice, regardless of their weight status. Main outcome measures. Paediatric standard definitions for childhood overweight based on BMI were used as the gold standard for categorizing weight-for-stature. Identification of overweight was analysed with regard to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the GPs’ assessment of weight-for-stature. Results. A total of 165 GPs conducted 1138 PCHEs. GPs assessed that 171 children had a weight-for-stature above normal. Use of the Danish Standards (DS), i.e. the Danish national growth charts for BMI, as the gold standard yielded a sensitivity of 70.1% (95% CI 62.0–77.3) and a specificity of 92.4% (95% CI 90.6–93.9). The sensitivity was influenced by the GPs’ use of BMI and the presence of previous notes regarding abnormal weight development. Conclusion. At the five-year PCHE almost one-third of overweight children were assessed to be normal weight by GPs. Use of BMI and presence of notes on abnormal weight in medical records were positively associated with a higher identification. Hence, utilization of medical record data and BMI charts may refine GPs’ assessment of childhood overweight.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Section for General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark
2 Research Unit of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark