IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2019i1p251-d303213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences between WHO Growth Standards and China Growth Standards in Assessing the Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0–36 Months Old

Author

Listed:
  • Qianling Tian

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Xiao Gao

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Tingting Sha

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Qiong He

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Gang Cheng

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Xialing Wu

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Fan Yang

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Xihong Wu

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Cai Tang

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Qunhui Xie

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Yan Yan

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha 410078, China)

Abstract

Background : At present, whether to use the World Health Organization’s (WHO) growth standards or native growth standards to assess the nutritional status in a given population is unclear. This study aimed to compare the differences between the WHO’s growth standards and China’s growth standards in assessing the nutritional status of children aged 0~36 months. Methods : We used z-scores to evaluate the nutritional status of children. The weight-for-age z-scores (WAZs), length/height-for-age z-scores (LAZ/HAZs), and weight-for-length/height z-scores (WLZ/WHZs) were calculated using the WHO’s growth standards and China’s growth standards. MeNemar’s test was used to compare the nutritional status of children. Results : The results in this study showed that there were differences between the WHO’s standards and China’s standards in assessing children’s nutritional status except for stunting and obesity. The prevalence of underweight assessed using China’s standards was higher than when using the WHO’s standards (except when 3 and 36 months old). The prevalence of wasting was significantly higher when assessed using China’s standards than when using the WHO’s standards from 12 to 36 months. The prevalence of overweight was higher when assessed using the WHO’s standards from 3 to 8 months. Conclusions : Both the WHO’s and China’s growth standards are useful measures in assessing children’s nutritional status but with key significant differences. Therefore, caution should be taken in selecting appropriate measures in a given population.

Suggested Citation

  • Qianling Tian & Xiao Gao & Tingting Sha & Qiong He & Gang Cheng & Xialing Wu & Fan Yang & Xihong Wu & Cai Tang & Qunhui Xie & Yan Yan, 2019. "Differences between WHO Growth Standards and China Growth Standards in Assessing the Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0–36 Months Old," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:251-:d:303213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/251/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/251/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Martinez-Millana & Jessie M Hulst & Mieke Boon & Peter Witters & Carlos Fernandez-Llatas & Ines Asseiceira & Joaquin Calvo-Lerma & Ignacio Basagoiti & Vicente Traver & Kris De Boeck & Carmen R, 2018. "Optimisation of children z-score calculation based on new statistical techniques," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:251-:d:303213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.