Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 25, 2025
Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
Published on: February 2, 2017
Agreement in Infant Growth Indicators and Overweight/Obesity between Community and Clinical Care Settings
Holly A Harris1, Samantha M R Kling2, Michele Marini3
1Center for Childhood Obesity Research, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Generation R Study Group, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Insights
Infant growth assessments show variability between community and clinical settings, particularly for measures including length. This inconsistency may affect how infant growth is interpreted, highlighting a need for standardized measurement protocols.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Nutrition
- Growth Monitoring
- Public Health
Background:
- Infants from low-income backgrounds receive care from both community and clinical settings.
- Mothers report conflicting messages regarding infant growth between these settings.
- Quantitative examination of this discrepancy has been lacking.
Purpose of the Study:
- To describe the agreement in infant growth assessments between community (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - WIC) and clinical (primary care) settings.
- To assess cross-context equivalence in weight status categorization.
Main Methods:
- Cross-sectional, secondary data analysis of infant growth measures from electronic data management systems.
- Bland-Altman analyses were used to determine limits of agreement and bias in z scores.
- Cross-context equivalence was examined using dichotomized growth indicators at the 85th and 95th percentile cut-points.
Main Results:
- Strongest agreement was found for weight-for-age z scores.
- Growth indicators including length showed wider limits of agreement, indicating weaker agreement.
- High inconsistency was observed in overweight/obesity classification using weight-for-length z scores, with 15.5% and 11.6% discordant categorization at the 85th and 95th percentile cut-points, respectively.
Conclusions:
- Infant growth indicators incorporating length may lead to disagreements in interpretation between care settings.
- Further investigation into standardized techniques, standards, and training for infant growth measurements across settings is required.
Background:
Infants from low-income backgrounds receive nutrition care from both community and clinical care settings. However, mothers accessing these services have reported receiving conflicting messages related to infant growth between settings, although this has not been examined quantitatively.
Objective:
Describe the agreement in infant growth assessments between community (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) and clinical (primary care providers) care settings.
Design:
A cross-sectional, secondary data analysis of infant growth measures abstracted from electronic data management systems.
Participants And Setting:
Participants included a convenience sample of infants (N = 129) from northeastern Pennsylvania randomized to the WEE Baby Care study from July 2016 to May 2018. Infants had complete anthropometric data from both community and clinical settings at age 6.2 ± 0.4 months. Average time between assessments was 2.7 ± 1.9 weeks.
Main Outcome Measures:
Limits of agreement and bias in weight-for-age, length-for-age, weight-for-length, and body-mass-index-for-age z scores as well as cross-context equivalence in weight status between care settings.
Statistical Analysis Performed:
Bland-Altman analyses were used to describe the limits of agreement and bias in z scores between care settings. Cross-context equivalence was examined by dichotomizing infants' growth indicators at the 85th and 95th percentile cut-points and cross-tabulating equivalent and discordant categorization between settings.
Results:
Strongest agreement was observed for weight-for-age z scores (95% limits of agreement -0.41 to 0.54). However, the limits of agreement intervals for growth indicators that included length were wider, suggesting weaker agreement. There was a high level of inconsistency for classification of overweight/obesity using weight-for-length z scores, with 15.5% (85th percentile cut-point) and 11.6% (95th percentile cut-point) discordant categorization between settings, respectively.
Conclusions:
Infant growth indicators that factor in length could contribute to disagreement in the interpretation of infant growth between settings. Further investigation into the techniques, standards, and training protocols for obtaining infant growth measurements across care settings is required.
More Related Videos
03:35Determining Gender-Based Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Thickness in Underweight Individuals via Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography
Published on: December 1, 2023
06:48Author Spotlight: Advancements in 3D Optical Imaging for Comprehensive Body Composition Assessment in Modern Research
Published on: June 7, 2024
Related Concept Videos
01:24Obesity
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:21Drug Dosing: Obese Patients
01:18Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...
01:26Levels of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention
In primary prevention, actions taken before disease onset prevent the disease from...
01:25Pharmacokinetics in Obese Patients: Drug Absorption and Distribution