Self-Measured vs Professionally Measured Waist Circumference
Open Access
- 1 May 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Annals of Family Medicine in Annals of Family Medicine
- Vol. 14 (3), 262-266
- https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1896
Abstract
PURPOSE Although waist circumference can provide important metabolic risk information, logistic issues inhibit its routine use in outpatient practice settings. We assessed whether self-measured waist circumference is sufficiently accurate to replace professionally measured waist circumference for identifying high-risk patients. METHODS Medical outpatients and research participants self-measured their waist circumference at the same visit during which a professionally measured waist circumference was obtained. Participants were provided with standardized pictorial instructions on how to measure their waist circumference, and professionals underwent standard training. RESULTS Self- and professionally measured waist circumference data were collected for 585 women (mean ± SD age = 40 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2) and 165 men (mean ± SD age = 41 ± 14 years, mean ± SD body mass index = 29.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2). Although self- and professionally measured waist circumference did not differ significantly, we found a clinically important false-negative rate for the self-measurements. Eleven percent of normal-weight and 52% of overweight women had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in a high-risk category for metabolic syndrome (ie, greater than 88 cm); however, 57% and 18% of these women, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. Fifteen percent and 84% of overweight and class I obese men, respectively, had a professionally measured waist circumference putting them in the high-risk category (ie, greater than 102 cm); however, 23% and 16% of these men, respectively, undermeasured their waist circumference as falling below that cutoff. CONCLUSIONS Despite standardized pictorial instructions for self-measured waist circumference, the false-negative rate of self-measurements approached or exceeded 20% for some groups at high risk for poor health outcomes.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measures of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Among Men and WomenJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2008
- Criterion validity of a computer-based tutorial for teaching waist circumference self-measurementJournal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 2008
- Self-Measured Waist Circumference in Older Patients With Heart FailureJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, 2008
- Self-Reported and Technician-Measured Waist Circumferences Differ in Middle-Aged Men and WomenJournal of Nutrition, 2005
- Accuracy of self-reported waist and hip measurements in 4492 EPIC–Oxford participantsPublic Health Nutrition, 2004
- The relationship between body mass index and waist circumference: implications for estimates of the population prevalence of overweightInternational Journal of Obesity, 2000
- Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulationBritish Journal of Nutrition, 1998
- Validation study of self-reported measures of fat distribution.1996
- Validity of Self-Reported Waist and Hip Circumferences in Men and WomenEpidemiology, 1990
- ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF SELF-MEASUREMENT OF BODY GIRTHSAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1988