National Child Measurement Programme

1
National Child Measurement Programme

• 2006/07 school year
• Headline Results

Compiled by Sally Cornfield on behalf of PAN-WM
2
Introduction

• The National Child Measurement Programme provides
  the first reliable, local-level assessment of
  childhood obesity in England.
• In total 876,416 valid measurements were received
  approximately 80 of those eligiblei.
• 435,927 children were measured in Reception.
  440,489 children in Year 6 were measuredi. (Table
  1 details the breakdown for gender, year group
  BMI classification)
• The 80 coverage represents an increased
  participation rate of 32. Only 48 of eligible
  children were measured in 2005/06i.
• A breakdown of West Midlands prevalence and
  coverage by PCT can be seen in Table 2i.
• When interpreting the results it is important to
  consider the possible
  effects of participation rate on prevalence
  rates. Year 6 estimates may
  be underestimated!

3
Table 1
Reception
Year 6
4
Table 2
5
Key Findings

• In Reception almost 1 in 4 of children measured
  were either overweight or obesei. (Table 1)
• In Year 6 nearly 1 in 3 children measured were
  either overweight or obesei. (Table 1)
• The prevalence was significantly higher in boys
  than in girls in both age groupsi. (Figure 1)
• The prevalence of obesity is significantly higher
  in Year 6 than in Receptioni. (Figure 1)
• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher than
  the national average in the North East, West
  Midlands London SHAs
  for both school yearsi. (Figures 2 3)
• Participation rates suggest that there might be
  higher levels of opting
  out among children with higher BMIsi.

6
Figure 1
Boys Overweight Boys Obese Boys Combined Girls
Overweight Girls Obese Girls Combined
7
Figure 2
Prevalence of obese overweight children in
Reception by SHA, 2006/07
8
Figure 3
Prevalence of obese overweight children in Year
6 by SHA, 2006/07
9
Key Findings

• The mean weight for children in Reception is
  19.8kgi. (Figure 4)
• The mean weight for children in Year 6 is 40.9kg,
  more than twice that for Receptioni. (Figure 5)
• Weight is more varied in Year 6 than in
  Receptioni. (Figures 4 5)
• Using Figures 4 5 it is clear that the
  distributions are not symmetrical. Both
  distributions are positively skewed (the right
  tail is longer than the left). This is due to a
  greater proportion of children at the higher end
  of the weight scalei.
• The skew is more pronounced for Year 6i. (Figure
  5)

10
Figures 4 5
Weight distributions of children in Reception
Year 6, 2006/07
11
Key Findings

• The mean height for children in Reception is
  110.4cmi. (Figure 6)
• The mean height for children in Year 6 is
  146.3cmi. (Figure 7)
• Both distributions are symmetrical, without the
  skews that are evident for weighti.
• The mean BMI for children in Reception is
  16.2kg/m2. (Figure 8)i
• The mean BMI for children in Year 6 is 18.9kg/m2.
  (Figure 9)i
• Using Figures 8 9 it is clear that the
  distributions are not symmetrical. Both
  distributions are positively skewed
  (the right tail is longer than
  the left). This is due to a
  greater number of children at the higher
  end of the BMI
  scalei. The skew is more pronounced in Year 6i.

12
Figures 6 7
Height distributions of children in Reception
Year 6, 2006/07
13
Figures 8 9
BMI distributions of children in Reception Year
6, 2006/07
14
Key Findings

• The prevalence of obese overweight children by
  year group and sex are shown in Figures 10 11i.
• The percentage of children who are overweight is
  only slightly higher in Year 6 than in Reception,
  however the prevalence of obesity is
  significantly higheri.
• In Reception the prevalence of overweight
  children is greater than the prevalence of obese.
  In Year 6 the opposite is truei.
• Figure 12 compares the prevalence of overweight
  obese combined children in Year 6, by SHA. (The
  bars are ranked by prevalence in Year 6)i.
• Areas with high obesity prevalence in one year
  group tend to also
  have high obesity prevalence in the other
  year groupi. (Figure 12
  Figure 2 3)

15
Figure 10
Prevalence of obese overweight children in
Reception, by sex 2006/07
16
Figure 11
Prevalence of obese overweight children in Year
6, by sex 2006/07
17
Figure 12
Prevalence of obese overweight combined"
children by Year SHA 2006/07
18
Key Findings

• The top four SHAs (of which the West Midlands is
  one) occupy the same rank order for children in
  both yearsi. (Figures 2, 3 12).
• There is a significant positive relationship
  between deprivation (measured by IMD score)
  obesity prevalence in childreni. (Figure 13)
• The gradient is steeper in Year 6i. (Figure 13)
• Using the percentage of children eligible for
  free school meals (FSM) as an indicator of
  deprivation also shows a significant positive
  relationship between obesity prevalence and
  deprivationi. (Figure 14)
• Using the line of best fir (r2) FSM data provides
  a better predictor of
  obesity prevalence in Year 6 than IMD
  scorei. (Figure 14

19
Figure 13
Prevalence of obese children against 2007 IMD
score by LA, 2006/07
20
Figure 14
Prevalence of obese children against percentage
of children eligible for FSM by LA, 2006/07
21
Key Findings

• Since a fairly low percentage (32, n.279,699)of
  records were returned with ethnicity information,
  the following statements should be treated with
  cautioni.
• Figures 15 16 show the prevalence of obese
  overweight children by ethnic categoryi.
• In Reception obesity prevalence in the following
  ethnic groups is higher than the national
  average Black African, Any Other Black
  Background, Black Caribbean, White Black
  Caribbean, Any Other Ethnic Group, Bangladeshi,
  Pakistani Any Other White Background.
  Prevalence is lower than the national average
  for Chinese, White Asian and Indian White
  British. For many of these groups, the difference
  is small in percentage terms but statistically
  significanti. (Figure 15)
• In Year 6 obesity prevalence is significantly
  higher than the national
  average for all children in all ethnic groups
  except Chinese, White Asian and
  Indian White Britishi.
  (Figure 16)

22
Figure 15
Prevalence of obese overweight children in
Reception by ethnic category, 2006/07
23
Figure 16
Prevalence of obese overweight children in Year
6 by ethnic category, 2006/07
24
Key Findings

• Collection of home postcode was optional. 58
  (n.505,583) records included home postcodes.
  Each record was assigned a rural/urban
  classification from the lower super output area
  that the postcode was aggregated to.
• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher in
  urban areas than in non-urban areas for both
  yearsi. (Figures 17 18)
• Overweight prevalence is similar between areas in
  both yearsi.
• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher in
  Year 6 than in Reception in all areasi.
• The prevalence of overweight children from urban
  areas is significantly lower
  in Reception than in Year 6i.
  (Figure 18)

25
Figure 17
Prevalence of obese overweight children in
Reception by rural/urban classification, 2006/07
26
Figure 18
Prevalence of obese overweight children in Year
6 by rural/urban classification, 2006/07
27
Considerations

• Measurements could be taken at any time during
  the 2006/07 academic year. Consequently some
  children were almost two years older than others
  in the same school year at the point of
  measurementi.
• Comparisons between the 2005/06 2006/07 results
  have not been made because the increase in
  participation rates from 48 to 80 may skew
  comparisonsi.
• Prevalence rates were calculated by deriving
  every childs SMI referencing the age and
  sex-specific UK National BMI percentiles to count
  the number of children defined as overweight
  or obesei.
• Geographical analyses are base on the childs
  school rather than home
  addressi.
• NHS Public Observatories are expected to produce
  more detailed analysis
  in due coursei.

28
Reference

• i National Child Measurement Programme 2006/07
  school year, headline results. (2008) The
  Information Centre. Available at
• http//www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/ncmp/n
  cmp0607/NCMP2020062007.20Bulletin20Final.pdf