Abdominal vs. overall obesity among women in a nutrition transition context: geographic and socio-economic patterns of abdominal-only obesity in Tunisia

Traissac, Pierre; Pradeilles, Rebecca; El Ati, Jalila; Aounallah-Skhiri, Hajer; Eymard-Duvernay, Sabrina; Gartner, Agnès; Béji, Chiraz; Bougatef, Souha; Martin-Prével, Yves; Kolsteren, Patrick; Delpeuch, Francis; Ben Romdhane, Habiba; Maire, Bernard

doi:10.1186/s12963-015-0035-3

Population Health Metrics

Table 4 Abdominal-only obesity by place of residence, physiological, and socio-economic factors among 35- to 70-year-old Tunisian women (complete-case analysis n = 2,633), multinomial logit regression

From: Abdominal vs. overall obesity among women in a nutrition transition context: geographic and socio-economic patterns of abdominal-only obesity in Tunisia

		AO: abdominal-only obesity (WC ≥ 88 cm & BMI < 30 kg/m²)^a
		Unadjusted			Adjusted^b
	n	%^c	RPR^d	C.I.^e	RPR^d	C.I.^e
Place of residence
Area			P = 0.33		P = 0.21
Rural	1184	27.0%	1	-	1	-
Urban	1449	24.6%	0.9	0.7-1.1	0.8	0.6-1.1
Region		P = 0.0004			P < 0.0001
South-West	366	16.6%	1	-	1	-
Center-West	433	19.2%	1.1	0.7-1.8	1.0	0.6-1.7
North-West	440	20.5%	1.3	0.8-1.9	1.2	0.8-2.0
South-East	384	34.1%	2.5	1.6-3.9	2.6	1.6-4.1
Center-East	366	25.0%	1.6	1.0-2.5	1.7	1.1-2.7
North-East	326	30.0%	2.0	1.3-3.2	2.3	1.5-3.6
Greater Tunis	318	28.1%	1.8	1.2-2.8	2.5	1.5-4.0
Physiological factors
Age		P = 0.0017			P = 0.88
35-44 y.	886	21.7%	1	-	1	-
45-54 y.	937	25.3%	1.2	0.9-1.6	1.0	0.7-1.4
55-70 y.	810	31.0%	1.6	1.2-2.1	1.1	0.7-1.6
Menopause		P = 0.0004			P = 0.093
No	1242	21.8%	1	-	1	-
Yes	1391	29.4%	1.5	1.2-1.8	1.3	0.8-1.5
Parity		P = 0.0023			P = 0.061
1^st tertile (0-3)	772	22.0%	1	-	1	-
2^nd tertile (4-5)	819	24.1%	1.1	0.8-1.5	1.1	0.8-1.5
3^rd tertile (6+)	1042	30.7%	1.6	1.2-2.0	1.4	1.0-2.0
Socio-economic position
Marital status		P = 0.46			P = 0.79
Other	443	27.3%	1	-	1	-
Married	2190	25.0%	0.9	0.7-1.2	0.9	0.5-1.6
Education		P = 0.13			P = 0.97
No formal schooling	1550	27.7%	1	-	1	-
Primary school	769	24.0%	0.8	0.6-1.1	1.0	0.7-1.3
Secondary or more	314	21.3%	0.7	0.5-1.0	0.9	0.5-1.6
Professional activity		P = 0.0095			P = 0.038
Not working/Retired	2142	27.1%	1	-	1	-
Employee/worker	376	18.4%	0.6	0.4-0.9	0.6	0.4-0.9
Upper/Intermediate	115	22.0%	0.7	0.4-1.3	1.0	0.5-1.7
Household welfare index ^f		P = 0.67			P = 0.94
1^st quintile	710	25.5%	1	-	1	-
2^nd quintile	657	27.6%	1.1	0.8-1.5	1.1	0.8-1.5
3^rd quintile	568	25.9%	1.0	0.8-1.4	1.0	0.7-1.4
4^th quintile	385	25.1%	1.0	0.7-1.4	0.9	0.6-1.4
5^th quintile	313	22.5%	0.9	0.6-1.2	0.9	0.5-1.5

^aVs. being a concordant subject (i.e., both abdominal and overall obese or neither abdominal nor overall obese). Results for the second response variable category (OO, overall-only obesity: WC <88 cm & BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) are not presented owing to the small overall proportion of OO subjects (1.6%).
^bAssociation of response variable with each place of residence, physiological, or socio-economic variable adjusted for all other variables in column 1.
^cPrevalence proportion (weighted estimates).
^dRPR: for category of cofactor vs. reference category (for which RPR = 1), crude or adjusted Relative Prevalence Ratio of being AO, i.e., having abdominal-only obesity vs. being a concordant subject (i.e., both abdominal and overall obese or neither abdominal nor overall obese).
^e0.95 confidence interval taking into account sampling design.
^fIncreasing household welfare level from 1^st to 5^th quintile.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1478-7954

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com