|
ARTICLE II
March 1995, Volume 1 No. 1
Mal J Nutr 1:11-19,
1995.
http://nutriweb.org.my/publications/mjn001/mjn1n1_002.pdf
Perception
of bodyweight status among office workers in two gorvernment departments
in Kuala Lumpur
Fatimah A1, Md Idris MN2, Romzi MA1 and Faizah H1
-
Department of Nutrition
and Dietetics, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
-
Department of Community
Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
ABSTRACT
(Full
Article)
The
objective of this paper is to assess the perception of bodyweight status
among the office workers in two government departments in Kuala Lumpur.
A total of 385 Malay workers aged between 18 to 55 years were randomly
selected from the Prime Minister’s Department and the Ministry of National
Unity and Community Development. The weights and heights of all subjects
were measured and their Body Mass Index (BMI) determined. In this study,
obesity is defined as individuals having³ 25 kg/m2. A questionnaire
was prepared to obtained information on socioeconomic status, health
aspects, dietary intakes, activity levels and perception on bodyweight
status. The study revealed a high prevalence of obesity (38.1 %) and
among the obese subjects, 21.7 % perceived themselves as having normal
weight. The normal weight and underweight subjects perceived themselves
as obese (33.5 % and 6.3 % respectively). A small percentage (5.7 %)
of the obese individuals who perceived themselves as obese did not wish
to Lose weight. In contrast, 9.7 % of the normal weight subjects who
perceived themselves as having normal weight wanted to lose weight.
A third person’s perception on the subjects’ bodyweight status is significantly
associated with the subjects’ bodyweight status (P<0.05). Among the
obese subjects, more men (32.3 %) perceived themselves as having normal
weights as compared to the women (12.3 %). This implies that women are
more aware of their bodyweight status as compared to the men.
|
|
 |
|
March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)
2010, Vol 16(2)
2010, Vol 16(3)
2011, Vol 17(1)
2011, Vol 17(2)
|
|
|
|