Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603 DOI 10.1007/s11136-007-9273-6

The association between body mass index and health-related quality of life: data from CaMos, a stratified population study Wilma M. Hopman Æ Claudie Berger Æ Lawrence Joseph Æ Susan I. Barr Æ Yongjun Gao Æ Jerilynn C. Prior Æ Suzette Poliquin Æ Tanveer Towheed Æ Tassos Anastassiades Æ CaMos Research Group

Accepted: 5 October 2007 / Published online: 24 October 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Background Deviation from normal weight is associated with health risks, but less is known about the association between weight and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We investigated this in the context of a population-based

study, using a standard five-category weight classification system based on body mass index (BMI). Methods The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study is a randomly selected sample of men and women over 25 years of age from nine centres across Canada. Data

CaMos Research Group: CaMos Coordinating Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec: David Goltzman (principal investigator), Alan Tenenhouse (principal investigator emeritus), Suzette Poliquin (national coordinator), Suzanne Godmaire (research assistant), Claudie Berger (study statistician). Memorial University, St. John’s Newfoundland: Carol Joyce (director), Christopher Kovacs (co-director), Emma Sheppard (coordinator). Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia: Susan Kirkland, Stephanie Kaiser (co-directors), Barbara Stanfield (coordinator). Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec: Jacques P. Brown (director), Louis Bessette (co-director), Marc Gendreau (coordinator). Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario: Tassos Anastassiades (director), Tanveer Towheed (co-director), Barbara Matthews (coordinator). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario: Bob Josse (director), Tim Murray (co-director), Barbara Gardner-Bray (coordinator), Nancy Kreiger (principal investigator). McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario: Jonathan D. Adachi (director), Alexandra Papaioannou (co-director), Laura Pickard (coordinator). University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Wojciech P. Olszynski (director), K. Shawn Davison (co-director), Jola Thingvold (coordinator). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta: David A. Hanley (director), Jane Allan (coordinator). University British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia: Jerilynn C. Prior (director), Yvette Vigna (coordinator).

W. M. Hopman
T. Towheed Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada C. Berger
Y. Gao CaMos Methods Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada L. Joseph Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada S. I. Barr Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada J. C. Prior Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada S. Poliquin CaMos National Coordinating Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada T. Towheed
T. Anastassiades Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

W. M. Hopman (&) Clinical Research Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Angada 4, K7L 2V7 Kingston, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

123

1596

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603

were obtained by interview, and height and weight were measured and used to calculate BMI. HRQOL was measured using the SF-36. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify the association between BMI category and SF-36 scores after controlling for potential confounders. Results Complete data were available for 6302 women and 2792 men. Mean BMI for every age and gender group exceeded healthy weight guidelines. For women, being underweight, overweight or obese was associated with poorer HRQOL in most SF-36 outcomes while for men, this was associated with poorer HRQOL in some domains and with higher HRQOL in others. Conclusions A significant proportion of the population may be putting their health at risk due to excess weight, which may have a substantial negative effect on HRQOL, particularly in women. This underscores the need for continued public health efforts aimed at combating overweight and obesity. Keywords SF-36

BMI
Body mass index
Epidemiology


Abbreviations HRQOL Health-related quality of life SF-36 Medical Outcomes Trust 36-item Health Survey BMI Body mass index CaMos Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study PCS Physical component summary of the SF-36 MCS Mental component summary of the SF-36 DXA Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry BMD Bone mineral density CI Confidence interval

Introduction Data from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey suggest that 65.0% of men and 53.4% of women aged 18 years and over are overweight or obese, while an additional 1.4% of men and 2.5% of women are underweight [1]. Overweight and obese individuals are more likely than their normal-weight peers to suffer from stress, activity restriction and chronic conditions including heart disease, certain cancers, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, arthritis and joint pain [2–5], in addition to having an increased risk of mortality [6, 7]. For women, being overweight at age 18 also increased the risk for subsequent anovulatory infertility [8]. Being underweight is associated with health risks such as poor nutrition, osteoporosis, infertility and impaired immunocompetence [1], as well as certain types of cancer [9], risk of fracture [10] and increased risk of mortality [6, 7].

123

Much of the research examining the association between body mass index (BMI) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has focused on weight in specific age groups, patient groups such as those with eating disorders or morbid obesity, or has examined the impact of weight loss, weight change or activity on HRQOL [11–14]. Less is known about the association between weight and healthrelated quality of life in a general population [15], or using the recently adopted weight classification system which defines underweight as a BMI of \18.5, normal as 18.5 to \25, overweight as 25.0 to \30, and includes three classes of obesity for those with a BMI of 30.0 to \35, 35.0 to \40, and C40 [1, 16]. A population-based study of 5,633 Swedish residents between the ages of 16 and 64 years noted a significant negative impact of obesity on HRQOL, with obese older women reporting the poorest HRQOL as compared to other groups [17]. A random sample of 12,905 Dutch residents between the ages of 20 and 59 years noted that a BMI C 25 was associated with increased risk of impaired quality of life, which was even more pronounced in the group with a BMI [ 30 [18]. An additional study that compared a random sample of 500 non-obese and 500 overweight subjects noted that the quality of life of patients with severe obesity was impaired, although physical aspects of HRQOL are much more affected than psychological and social aspects [19]. Results from a populationbased sample of 14,221 Taiwanese residents using self-reported height and weight noted that HRQOL worsened as weight increased, and that as compared to men, women with excess weight showed a greater deficit in HRQOL [20]. Several studies focused on excess weight and HRQOL in younger age groups. Two studies demonstrated poorer general and physical health in obese adolescents [21] and young women [22], and noted that the best scores for physical functioning, general health and vitality were among the women with a BMI of 18.5 to \25. Underweight (BMI \ 18.5) was not strongly associated with reduced HRQOL in a sample of young Australian women, but was associated with other health problems such as low iron and irregular menstruation [22]. Three studies focused on older adults. In a population of 7,080 community-dwelling US adults aged 65 years and older, being either underweight (BMI \ 18.5) or overweight (BMI C 25) was associated with impaired quality of life [23], while a study of 160 home-dwelling elderly people found that being overweight or obese were among the primary predictors of decreased quality of life [24]. In a random sample of 3,605 Spanish residents aged 60 years and older, suboptimal physical functioning was more common among obese men and women as compared to those of a normal weight [25].

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603

Two studies assessed data collected by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a telephone-administered survey of randomly selected households designed to collect state-specific estimates of the prevalence of behaviours that relate to the leading causes of death in the US [26]. It includes four healthrelated quality of life questions (self-rated health, physically unhealthy days, mentally unhealthy days, activity limitation days) [26, 27]. One study found that the obese and severely obese were more likely to have greater than 14 unhealthy days affecting both physical and mental health [27], while the other found that ratings of poor or fair health increased for those with low BMI (\18.5) and in those with elevated BMI (C25.0) [26]. With the exception of the Taiwanese study [20], no other study has looked at the entire adult population, focusing instead on specific age groups. However, the Taiwanese study used self-reported rather than measured height and weight [20]. The use of measured height and weight is important, as there is evidence that both men and women overestimate their height and underestimate their weight [28, 29]. In one study, this resulted in a 3.3–12.2% misclassification of BMI category, depending on the gender and BMI category assessed [29]. Despite the cost of collecting measured height and weight, it is important, as self-reported BMI is not appropriate for precise measures of obesity prevalence [30]. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) was designed to study the incidence and prevalence of osteoporosis in a random sample of Canadians over 25 years of age. This provided the opportunity to assess the association between health related quality of life and BMI category based on measured height and weight within a large population-based cohort of Canadian adults.

Methods CaMos is an on-going, 10-year prospective cohort study of 9,423 non-institutionalized, randomly selected men and women aged 25 years and older at baseline in 1995–1997. This analysis is of data collected at baseline. Participants were drawn from a 50-kilometer radius of nine Canadian cities (St John’s, Halifax, Quebec City, Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver). A detailed description of the objectives, methodology and sampling framework for CaMos is available elsewhere [31, 32]. Briefly, households within each region were selected by random draws of listed telephone numbers, and one randomly selected household member over 25 years of age was asked to participate. Of 22,173 eligible households, 27.5% declined to participate, 30.0% completed a short

1597

questionnaire that provided information about the age, gender and fracture history of the residents, and 9,423 (42.5%) went on to participate fully in the study. Ethics approval was obtained through the Review Boards of each participating centre. All data were obtained from an interview-administered questionnaire designed for CaMos and shown to have good reproducibility [33]. The majority of participants were scheduled for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) on the same day as the interview, at which time both height (without shoes) and weight (in indoor clothing) were measured. For those who elected not to have the BMD or for whom it could not be scheduled, the interviewer measured height and weight with a carpenter’s rule and a portable scale. BMI was calculated using the standard formula of weight in kilograms divided by the height in metres squared. HRQOL was measured using the Medical Outcomes Trust 36-item health survey (SF-36), one of the most widely used, validated and psychometrically sound instruments for the assessment of HRQOL [32, 34, 35]. The SF-36 consists of 36 items encompassing eight HRQOL domains including physical function, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. Domains are scored on standardized scales from 0–100, with higher values representing better HRQOL [34]. Two summary scores, a Physical Component Summary (PCS) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS), are standardized to a mean of 50, with a score above 50 representing better than average function and below 50 poorer than average function [35]. Both the PCS and the MCS are based on all eight domain scores, although the PCS is primarily based on the domains of physical function, role physical, bodily pain and general health, while the MCS is primarily based on the vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health domains [35]. All analyses were conducted separately for men and women. Six pregnant women were excluded from the analysis. The number with missing BMI and/or SF-36 data was determined, and those with and without missing data were compared. The number of men and women in each of the BMI categories was then calculated. Multivariable linear regression modelling was used to assess the association between BMI category and the SF-36 domain and summary component scores after controlling for potential confounders, using the normal weight group (BMI 18.5 to \25) as the reference population. Since previous research has shown that the association between age and HRQOL is not linear [32], age was included as a categorical variable using 10-year increments, with the youngest group (25 to \35 years) as the reference category.

123

1598

Potential confounding variables in addition to age were identified on the basis of an extensive literature review and previous work with the SF-36 in this population [36], and included an initial list of 60 variables. Univariate regression was used to examine the association between these variables and the domains, and 15 were retained. These included sociodemographic characteristics (region of Canada as the nine study sites listed earlier; education as seven levels including \grade 9; grade 9–12 or 13 without diploma; high school diploma; trade; some university; university certificate or diploma; university degree[s]); clinical characteristics (presence or absence of a variety of comorbid conditions including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid [hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism], heart disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack); number of comorbid conditions; previous surgery; history of fractures due to severe trauma, minimal trauma or other disease; smoking status, medications such as bisphosphonates or cortisone/prednisone; menopausal status and clinically reported depression. Two measures of activity level (time spent walking in a typical week in the past 6 months, and number of sedentary hours per day) were evaluated but did not make any substantial contributions to the domains, and were therefore excluded. Differences in SF-36 domain scores between the reference (normal weight) age- and sex-specific populations and those who were in different BMI categories were considered clinically and socially relevant if they exceeded five points [34]. For the Physical and Mental Component Summaries, a two- to three-point difference is likely to be relevant [35].

Results As shown in Table 1, the sample included 6,302 (96.4%) women and 2,792 (96.8%) men after excluding those with missing BMI or HRQOL data. This table also contains the values for age category and weight category, although the data for the weight categories are more meaningful when age is taken into consideration in subsequent tables. Height and/or weight were missing for 202 women and 81 men, primarily due to scheduling difficulties for the DXA at two sites. The SF-36 scores were similar for men with and without BMI data. However, women with missing BMI differed from those with BMI data in that they had substantially lower mean scores for multiple domains including physical function (-18.4 points), role physical (-7.4), bodily pain (-5.7), general health (-6.0) and vitality (-7.9) domains. An examination of the age of the 202 women revealed that 20.8% were in the age group of 55–64 years, 26.7% were 65–74 years of age while an

123

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603 Table 1 Description of sample

Total CaMos sample Number missing BMI data Number missing HRQOL data Subset in analysis

Women

Men

6,539

2,884

202 (3.1%)

81 (2.8%)

41 (0.6%)

11 (0.4%) a

6,302 (96.4%)

2,792 (96.8%)

25 to \35

190 (3.0%)

187 (6.7%)

35 to \45

278 (4.4%)

205 (7.3%)

45 to \55

1,091 (17.3%)

577 (20.7%)

55 to \65

1,589 (25.2%)

627 (22.5%)

65 to \75

2,064 (32.8%)

782 (28.0%)

75+ Weight category

1,090 (17.3%)

414 (14.8%)

Age category

Underweight

a

123 (2.0%)

22 (0.8%)

Normal weight

2,367 (37.6%)

843 (30.2%)

Overweight

2,324 (36.9%)

1,379 (49.4%)

Obese class 1

1,035 (16.4%)

444 (15.9%)

Obese class 2

337 (5.3%)

84 (3.0%)

Obese class 3

116 (1.8%)

20 (0.7%)

Six were missing both BMI and HRQOL data

Percentages for the age and weight categories are based on the subset of those in the analysis

additional 33.2% were 75 years or older, so these results may reflect the lower physically-oriented function experienced by women in the older age groups as compared to younger age groups [32]. The distribution of BMI categories for those with and without HRQOL data did not differ substantially for men or women. Most BMI categories were adequately represented, with the exception of the underweight and obese class III for men, which had relatively low frequencies of 22 (0.8%) and 20 (0.7%) of the sample of men respectively. CaMos was designed to collect epidemiological data related to the incidence and prevalence of osteoporosis, therefore although the sampling framework was random, it was designed to include more women than men, and a higher proportion of older than younger Canadian residents. This is evident in the frequencies for the age categories in Table 1. Figure 1 portrays the mean BMI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each of the age groups, for both men and women. The mean BMI values for all age and gender groups exceeded the healthy weight guidelines of a BMI \ 25 [2]. Adjusted parameter estimates for the eight domains and the two summary component scores of the SF-36 are shown for women in Table 2 and for men in Table 3. Each column is based on a separate regression model, and normal weight was used as the reference category. The entire regression models are not presented as the variables

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603

1599

28.5

Body Mass Index

28 27.5 27 26.5 26 25.5 25 24.5 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

MEN

WOMEN Age Category (Years)

some domains and component summary scores, and with higher HRQOL in others. Of the 40 cells representing excess weight (4 levels of overweight and 10 SF-36 outcomes), only 8 (20%) had lower HRQOL as compared to the normal group, with seven of these attaining clinical relevance. An additional 15 (37.5%) had inconclusive but poorer HRQOL. Four (10%) had higher HRQOL, although none attained clinical relevance, while an additional 13 (32.5%) had higher but inconclusive HRQOL. This was particularly apparent in the overweight group, and less evident in the three classes of obesity.

Fig. 1 Mean baseline body mass index with standard deviations, by gender and age

Discussion

in the model differ for each domain and summary component score, and the estimates for the weight categories are the primary focus of this research. The number of variables controlled for in each model varied from a low of three for the role emotional model for both men and women and the social function model for men, to a high of 12 for the physical function and bodily pain domains for women. For women, being underweight was associated with clinically important reductions in 3/8 domains (physical function, general health, vitality), and two of these (physical function, general health) exceeded the 5-point difference commonly considered to be clinically and socially relevant [34]. The remaining 5 domains and the two summary component scores were also negatively affected by being underweight, although the results were inconclusive in that the 95% CI included zero. A similar pattern was evident for men, although a clinically relevant effect was only evident in the social function domain. For women, being overweight or obese was associated with poorer HRQOL in almost all domains and component summary scores. The only exceptions were the three classes of obesity, which were associated with inconclusively but better mental health compared with the normal reference sample. The same held true for the Mental Component Summary for the two highest levels of obesity. Of the 40 cells representing excess weight (4 levels of overweight and 10 SF-36 outcomes), 20 (50%) had lower HRQOL as compared to the normal group, with 15 of these considered to be clinically relevant ([5 points for the domain scores [34] and [2–3 points likely to be clinically relevant for the component summary scores [35]). An additional 15 (37.5%) domain and summary component scores showed inconclusive but lower HRQOL than the reference sample. A somewhat different pattern of associations between BMI categories and HRQOL emerged for the men. Being overweight or obese was associated with poorer HRQOL in

In general, these results suggest that any deviation from normal weight, particularly underweight and the three levels of obesity, is, on average, associated with poorer HRQOL. In men, being in the overweight category was associated with slightly better HRQOL as compared to a normal weight, while being overweight was associated with slightly lower HRQOL for women, but most values for both men and women were close to zero for the overweight category. The negative impact of underweight in both men and women supports the findings of one previous study that found lower HRQOL in underweight US adults over 65 years of age [21], as well as another that found reduced MCS scores in underweight adults [37]. Our data suggest that the effect of being underweight is more pronounced in the physical domains for women, but is more pronounced in the mental domains, particularly social function, for men. The finding that obesity is associated with lower HRQOL, particularly in the physically oriented domains, supports previous research [18, 20, 23–25]. The effect becomes more pronounced as level of obesity increases [18, 20, 37]. One other study has noted that the effect is more pronounced in women [20] and several have noted that overweight and obesity affect the physical domains far more than the mental domains [20, 25, 38]. These findings are quite consistent regardless of whether the research focused on younger populations [17, 21], the elderly [25], or the general population [20, 38]. This may be associated with mobility problems and pain experienced with increased weight [39]. One study noted that virtually all health outcomes studied, including respiratory insufficiency, low back pain, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors and general physical function were significantly influenced by increased level of BMI [18]. One study of Spanish adults found that obesity in men was associated with better mental health [25]. Although the

123

123

(-2.3, 0.02)

-6.0

(-7.5, -4.5)

-11.7

(-14.0, -9.4)

-17.8

(-21.6, -14.0)

BMI 25 to \30

Obese class I

BMI 30 to \35

Obese class II

BMI 35 to \40

Obese class III

BMI C 40

(-21.5, -8.2)

-14.8

(-10.7, -2.6)

-6.7

(-4.8, 0.5)

-2.1

(-2.4, 1.7)

(-9.2, 3.6) -0.3

-2.8

(75.8, 78.7)

77.3

Role physical

(-12.4, -3.8)

-8.1

(-8.4, -3.1)

-5.7

(-3.3, 0.0)

-1.7

(-1.7, 0.9)

(-4.3, 3.8) -0.4

-0.2

(72.8, 74.7)

73.8

Bodily pain

(-11.5, -5.3)

-8.4

(-4.0, -0.2)

-2.1

(-2.3, 0.1)

-1.1

(-1.2, 0.7)

(-8.6, -2.6) -0.3

-5.6

(75.3, 76.8)

76.1

General health

(-8.8, -2.3)

-5.5

(-6.0, -2.0)

-4

(-3.9, -1.4)

-2.7

(-1.9, 0.1)

(-7.0, -0.6) -0.9

-3.8

(64.1, 65.7)

64.9

Vitality

(-9.4, -2.1)

-5.7

(-5.1, -0.7)

-2.9

(-3.1, -0.3)

-1.7

(-1.4, 0.8)

(-6.8, 0.3) -0.3

-3.3

(86.0, 87.6)

86.8

Social function

(-13.6, -2.4)

-8.0

(-6.8, 0.0)

-3.4

(-4.5, -0.2)

-2.3

(-2.6, 0.8)

(-9.0, 1.8) -0.9

-3.6

(84.1, 86.6)

85.4

Role emotional

(-1.4, 3.6)

1.1

(-0.9, 2.1)

0.6

(-0.9, 1.0)

0.04

(-0.9, 0.6)

(-4.3, 0.5) -0.2

-1.9

(77.7, 78.9)

78.3

Mental health

(-8.3, -4.9)

-6.6

(-4.8, -2.7)

-3.7

(-2.2, -0.9)

-1.6

(-0.8, 0.2)

(-3.2, 0.0) -0.3

-1.6

(47.7, 48.5)

48.1

PCS

(-1.1, 1.7)

0.3

(-0.5, 1.3)

0.4

(-0.7, 0.5)

-0.1

(-0.7, 0.2)

(-2.1, 0.6) -0.2

-0.7

(52.7, 53.4)

53.1

MCS

Bolded scores are considered importantly different ([5 points for the domains, [2–3 points for the summaries [28, 29])

PCS = Physical component summary; MCS = Mental component summary; the PCS is primarily based on the physical function, role physical, bodily pain and general health domains, while the MCS is primarily based on the vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health domains. Domain scores can range from 0–100, whereas PCS and MCS are standardized to a mean of 50

Each column represents a separate regression model

Normal weight (BMI 18.5 to \25) is the reference category

-6.6

(-10.2, -3.0) -1.1

Underweight

BMI 18.5 to \25

BMI \ 18.5 Overweight

78.6

(77.7, 79.5)

Normal

Physical function

Weight category

Table 2 Adjusted parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals for weight categories for women

1600 Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603

82.1

(80.6, 83.6)

-5.7

(-13.3, 1.9)

0.2

(-1.4, 1.8)

-1.8

(-4.0, 0.3)

-7.3

(-11.5, -3.1)

-17.4 (-25.3, -9.4)

Normal

BMI 18.5 to \25

Underweight

BMI \ 18.5

Overweight

BMI 25 to \30

Obese class I

BMI 30 to \35

Obese class II

BMI 35 to \40

Obese class III BMI C 40

-14.2 (-28.1, -0.4)

(-10.7, 3.3)

-3.7

(-2.9, 4.4)

0.7

(-0.0, 5.3)

2.7

(-13.9, 12.5)

-0.7

(78.4, 83.0)

80.7

Role physical

-10.3 (-19.5, -1.1)

(-6.0, 3.6)

-1.2

(-3.1, 1.8)

-0.7

(-0.9, 2.8)

0.9

(-11.6, 6.0)

-2.8

(75.9, 78.9)

77.4

Bodily pain

-6.2 (-13.2, 0.9)

(-5.8, 1.4)

-2.2

(-2.7, 1.0)

-0.8

(0.0, 2.7)

1.4

(-10.2, 3.3)

-3.4

(73.2, 75.7)

74.4

General health

-0.5 (-7.4, 6.5)

(-5.9, 1.3)

-2.3

(-3.4, 0.3)

-1.6

(-8.2, 1.9)

0.6

(-11.2, 2.1)

-4.6

(66.8, 69.2)

68

Vitality

-7.8 (-15.7, 0.0)

(-3.8, 4.3)

0.3

(-1.4, 2.7)

0.6

(0.1, 3.2)

1.6

(-19.3, -4.3)

-11.8

(86.5, 89.2)

87.8

Social function

-4.3 (-16.1, 7.5)

(-7.4, 4.5)

-1.5

(0.1, 6.2)

3.2

(1.5, 6.0)

3.8

(-12.9, 9.6)

-1.6

(82.9, 87.0)

85

Role emotional

2.1 (-3.2, 7.3)

(-2.1, 3.4)

0.6

(-0.9, 1.9)

0.5

(0.0, 2.1)

1.1

(-7.7, 2.3)

-2.7

(79.2, 81.1)

80.2

Mental Health

-7.1 (-10.6, -3.5)

(-4.0, -0.3)

-2.1

(-1.6, 0.3)

-0.6

(-0.5, 0.9)

0.2

(-5.3, 1.4)

-2

(48.6, 49.9)

49.2

PCS

-16.8 (-25.0, -8.6)

(-11.3, -3.0)

-7.2

(-4.3, 0.0)

-2.2

(-1.1, 2.1)

0.5

(-12.7, 3.1)

-4.8

(52.8, 53.9)

53.4

MCS

Bolded scores are considered importantly different ([5 points for the domains, [2–3 points for the summaries [28, 29])

PCS = Physical component summary; MCS = Mental component summary; the PCS is primarily based on the physical function, role physical, bodily pain and general health domains, while the MCS is primarily based on the vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health domains. Domain scores can range from 0 to 100, whereas PCS and MCS are standardized to a mean of 50

Each column represents a separate regression model

Normal weight (BMI 18.5 to \25) is the reference category

Physical function

Weight category

Table 3 Adjusted parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals for weight categories for men

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603 1601

123

1602

effect size was small and the findings were inconclusive, we also found that the highest levels of obesity were positively associated with mental health. This may, to some extent, reflect a process of adaptation, as other research has shown that mental health is particularly resilient in the face of increased age, disease and disability [40]. Limitations of the study need to be considered. First, although the CaMos participants were randomly selected, not all of those who were invited to do so participated. In addition, although the 50-kilometer radius around each city often did include some rural areas, our data do not allow us to fully investigate rural regions. Caution must also be used when interpreting any results based on BMI data, for while it is a commonly used indicator of relative weight, it is a composite measure that is unable to distinguish between fat and lean tissue [41]. However, the fact that our data are based on measured rather than self-reported height and weight is a particular strength of the study [28–30]. The mean BMI values for all age and gender groups in this study exceeded healthy weight guidelines. This is consistent with data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, which indicated that the majority of Canadians are overweight or obese [1]. Longitudinal research has shown that those whose weight is already in excess of recommended guidelines are more likely to continue to gain weight than to lose it [42, 43], and that a higher BMI in middle age is associated with poorer HRQOL in older age [44]. These findings therefore suggest that a substantial number of people may not only be putting their health at risk due to excess weight, but that this also may have a significant negative effect on their HRQOL. This underscores the need for continued public health efforts aimed at combating the current epidemic of obesity. Acknowledgements CaMos was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Merck Frosst Canada Ltd., Eli Lilly Canada Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc., The Alliance: SafoniAventis & Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., The Dairy Farmers of Canada, The Arthritis Society. None of the funding agencies were directly involved in the design or conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data, or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. The authors thank all the participants in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.

References 1. Tjepkema, M. (2006). Adult obesity in Canada: Measured height and weight. Statistics Canada. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/ english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/adults/aobesity.htm (accessed August 9, 2007). 2. Health Canada. (2003). Canadian guidelines for body weight classification in adults. Ottawa: Health Canada Publications Centre, Publication ID 4645.

123

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603 3. Raine, K. D. (2002). Overweight and obesity in Canada: A population health perspective. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information. 4. Trakas, K., Lawrence, K., & Shear, N. H. (1999). Utilization of health care resources by obese Canadians. CMAJ, 160, 1457– 1462. 5. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., & Flegal, K. M. (2003). Epidemiologic trends in overweight and obesity. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 32, 741–760. 6. Katzmarzyk, P. T, Craig, C. L., & Bouchard, C. (2001). Underweight, overweight and obesity: Relationships with mortality in the 13-year follow-up of the Canadian Fitness Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 916–920. 7. Flegal, K. M., Graubard, B. I., Williamson, D. F., & Gail, M. H. (2005). Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight and obesity. JAMA, 293, 1861–1867. 8. Rich-Edwards, J. W., Goldman, M. B., Willett, W. C., Hunter, D. J., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., et al. (1994). Adolescent body mass index and infertility caused by ovulatory disorder. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 171, 171–177. 9. Gilmore, J. (1999). Body mass index and health. Statistics Canada Catalogue 82-003. Health Reports, 11, 31–43. 10. De Laet, C., Kanis, J. A., Ode´n, A., Johanson, H., Johnell, O., Delmas, P., et al. (2005). Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: A meta-analysis. Osteoporosis International, 16, 1330–1338. 11. Maciejewski, M. L., Patrick, D. L., & Williamson, D. E. (2005). A structured review of randomized controlled trials of weight loss showed little improvement in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 568–578. 12. Bish, C. L., Michels Blanck, H., Maynard, L. M., Serdula, M. K., Thompson, N. J., & Ketter Khan, L. (2006). Health-related quality of life and weight loss among overweight and obese adults, 2001 to 2002. Obesity, 14, 2042–2053. 13. Kruger, J., Bowles, H. R., Jones, D. A., Ainsworth, B. E., & Kohl, H. W. (2007). Health-related quality of life, BMI and psychical activity among US adults (C118 years): National physical activity and weight loss survey. International Journal of Obesity, 31, 321–327. 14. Fine, J. T., Colditz, G. A., Coakley, E. H., Moseley, G., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Kawachi, I. (1999). A prospective study of weight change and health-related quality of life in women. JAMA, 282, 2136–2142. 15. Han, T. S., Tijhuis, M. A. R., Lean, M. E. J., & Seidell, J. C. (1998). Quality of life in relation to overweight and body fat distribution. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1814–1820. 16. World Health Organization. (2000) Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on obesity. Geneva: World Health Organization. 17. Larsson, U., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2002). Impact of overweight and obesity on health-related quality of life—A Swedish population study. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 26, 417–424. 18. Lean, M. E., Hans, T. S., & Seidell, J. C. (1999). Impairment of health and quality of life using new US federal guidelines for the identification of obesity. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 837–843. 19. Le Pen, C., Levy, E., Loos, F., Banzet, M. N., & Basdevant, A. (1998). ‘‘Specific’’ scale compared with ‘‘generic’’ scale: A double measurement of the quality of life in a French community sample of obese subjects. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52, 445–450. 20. Huang, I-C., Frangakis, C, & Wu, A. W. (2006). The relationship of excess body weight and health-related quality of life: Evidence from a population study in Taiwan. International Journal of Obesity, 30, 1250–1259.

Qual Life Res (2007) 16:1595–1603 21. Swallen, K. C., Reither, E. N., Haas, S. A., & Meier, A. M. (2005). Overweight, obesity and health-related quality of life among adolescents: The national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Pediatrics, 115, 340–347. 22. Brown, W. J., Mishra, G., Kenardy, J., & Dobson, A. (2000). Relationships between body mass index and well-being in young Australian women. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 24, 1360–1368. 23. Yan, L. L., Daviglus, M. L., Liu K., Pirzada, A., Garside, D. B., Schiffer, L., Dyer, A. R., & Greenland, P. (2004). BMI and health-related quality of life in adults 65 years and older. Obesity Research, 12, 69–76. 24. Borowiak, E., & Kostka, T. (2004). Predictors of quality of life in older people living at home and in institutions. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 16, 212–220. 25. Lopez-Garcia, E., Banegas, J. R., Gutierrez-Fisac, J. L., PerezRegadera, A. G., Ganan, L. D., & Rodriguez-Artalejo, F. (2003). Relationship between body weight and health-related quality of life among the elderly in Spain. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 27, 701–709. 26. Ford, E. S., Moriarty, D. G., Zack, M. M., Mokdad, A. H., & Chapman, D. P. (2001). Self-reported body mass index and health-related quality of life: Findings from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Obesity Research, 9, 21–31. 27. Hassan, M. K., Joshi, A. V., Madhavan, S. S., Amonkar, M. M. (2003). Obesity and health-related quality of life: A crosssectional analysis of the US population. International Journal of Obesity, 27, 1227–1232. 28. Gorber, S. C., Tremblay, M., Moher, D., & Gorber, B. (2007). A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 8, 307–326. 29. Danubio, M. E., Miranda, G., Vinciguerra, M. G., Vecchi, E., & Rufo, F. (2007). Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight: Implications for obesity research among young adults. Economics and Human Biology, Apr 8 [Epub ahead of print]. 30. McAdams, M. A., Van Dam, R. M., & Hu, F. B. (2007). Comparison of self-reported and measured BMI as correlates of disease markers in US adults. Obesity, 15, 188–196. 31. Kreiger, N., Tenenhouse, A., Joseph, L., MacKenzie, T., Poliquin, S., Brown, J. P., Prior, J. C., & Rittmaster, R. S. (1999). The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): Background, rationale, methods. Canadian Journal on Aging, 18, 376–387. 32. Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhourse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., Joseph, L., et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. CMAJ, 163, 265–271.

1603 33. Nadalin, V., Bentvelson, K., & Krieger, N. (2004). Reliability of self-reports: Data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Chronic Diseases in Canada, 25, 28–31. 34. Ware, J. E. (1993). SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre. 35. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre. 36. Hopman, W. M., Berger, C., Joseph, L., Towheed, T., van den Kerkhof, E., et al. (2006). The natural progression of healthrelated quality of life: Results of a five-year prospective study of SF-36 scores in a normative population from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Quality of Life Research, 15, 527–536. 37. Jia, H., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2005). The impact of obesity on healthrelated quality of life in the general adult US population. Journal of Public Health, 27, 156–164. 38. Doll, H. A., Peterson, S. E., & Stewart-Brown, S. L. (2000). Obesity and physical and emotional well-being: Associations between body mass index, chronic illness and the physical and mental components of the SF-36 questionnaire. Obesity Research, 8, 160–170. 39. Sach, T. H., Barton, G. R., Doherty, M., Muir, K. R., Jenkinson, C., & Avery, A. J. (2007). The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life: Comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQuol VAS and SF-6D. International Journal of Obesity, 31, 189–196. 40. Singer, M. A., Hopman, W. M., & MacKenzie, T. A. (1999). Psychological adjustment in four chronic medical conditions. Quality of Life Research, 8, 687–691. 41. Heo, M., Faith, M. S., & Pietrobelli, A. (2002). Resistance to change of adult body mass index. International Journal of Obesity, 26, 1404–1405. 42. Le Petit, C., & Berthelot, J. M. (2005). Obesity: A growing issue. Healthy today, health tomorrow? Findings from the National Population Health Survey 2005 (Catalogue 82618MWE2005003). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. 43. Hopman, W. M., Leroux, C., Berger, C., Joseph, L., Barr, S. I., et al. (2007). Changes in body mass index in Canadians over a five-year period: Results of a prospective, population-based study. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 150 [Epub ahead of print]. 44. Daviglus, M. L., Liu, K., Yan, L. L., Pirzada, A., Garside, D. B., Schiffer, L., Dyer, A. R., Greenland, P., & Stamler, J. (2003). Body mass index in middle age and health-related quality of life in older age: The Chicago heart association detection project in industry study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 2448–2455.

123