Abstract

Session presented on Saturday, November 7, 2015 and Sunday, November 8, 2015:

Rising obesity rates have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and subsequent delivery of health services globally. Therefore accurate assessment of individual weight status is vital (Carpenter et al. 2013). Although, frequently used in clinical practice and research, the ability of the body mass index (BMI) to accurately assess obesity in individuals has been much criticised. Raising awareness among nursing staff of the limitations of BMI is important. By understanding the various inadequacies, the use of BMI as an assessment tool for obesity, and thereby a proxy measure of metabolic risk (Tchernof & Despres 2013), nurses will be able to apply the scale with discretion to determine a truer assessment of health risk for the individual. From a literature search (CINAHL, Medline and PubMed) three themes that emerged. That BMI had limited applicability due to: an inability to distinguish percentage body fat from total weight; reduced sensitivity in the intermediate ranges of the scale and an inability to differentiate location and type of adiposity. Based on these three limitations, this review documents how obesity assessment outcomes in practice can be incorrect, specifically across different ethnic, gender and lifespan groups. While consensus was not reached in the literature to cease its use in practice, several authors promote amendments to ranges and/or the inclusion of other anthropometric measures to increase detection rates. However, recommending a change to practice is beyond the scope of this review.

Description

43rd Biennial Convention 2015 Theme: Serve Locally, Transform Regionally, Lead Globally.

Authors

Sinead Impey

Author Details

Sinead Impey, RGN

Sigma Membership

Non-member

Type

Poster

Format Type

Text-based Document

Study Design/Type

N/A

Research Approach

N/A

Keywords:

Body Mass Index, Obesity, Body Composition

Conference Name

43rd Biennial Convention

Conference Host

Sigma Theta Tau International

Conference Location

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Conference Year

2015

Rights Holder

All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record.

All permission requests should be directed accordingly and not to the Sigma Repository.

All submitting authors or publishers have affirmed that when using material in their work where they do not own copyright, they have obtained permission of the copyright holder prior to submission and the rights holder has been acknowledged as necessary.

Acquisition

Proxy-submission

Share

COinS
 

The limitations of body mass index (BMI) as an obesity assessment scale and the implications for practice: A nursing perspective

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Session presented on Saturday, November 7, 2015 and Sunday, November 8, 2015:

Rising obesity rates have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and subsequent delivery of health services globally. Therefore accurate assessment of individual weight status is vital (Carpenter et al. 2013). Although, frequently used in clinical practice and research, the ability of the body mass index (BMI) to accurately assess obesity in individuals has been much criticised. Raising awareness among nursing staff of the limitations of BMI is important. By understanding the various inadequacies, the use of BMI as an assessment tool for obesity, and thereby a proxy measure of metabolic risk (Tchernof & Despres 2013), nurses will be able to apply the scale with discretion to determine a truer assessment of health risk for the individual. From a literature search (CINAHL, Medline and PubMed) three themes that emerged. That BMI had limited applicability due to: an inability to distinguish percentage body fat from total weight; reduced sensitivity in the intermediate ranges of the scale and an inability to differentiate location and type of adiposity. Based on these three limitations, this review documents how obesity assessment outcomes in practice can be incorrect, specifically across different ethnic, gender and lifespan groups. While consensus was not reached in the literature to cease its use in practice, several authors promote amendments to ranges and/or the inclusion of other anthropometric measures to increase detection rates. However, recommending a change to practice is beyond the scope of this review.