Abstract
Objective
Examine the relationship between disability and overweight/obesity among U.S. adults.
Methods
Study sample (N = 30,363) came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2012 waves. Disability was classified into five domains using standardized indices. Any disability was defined as having any difficulty in performing at least one of the activities in any of the five disability domains. Logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the association between disability and overweight/obesity, adjusted by individual characteristics and multiyear complex sampling design.
Results
Over a quarter (25.99%) of U.S. adults 20 years and older reported having any disability. The overweight/obesity rates across all disability domains were substantially higher than their nondisabled counterparts. The rate of overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) among people with any disability were 1.14 (73.54% versus 64.50%), 1.38 (41.37% versus 29.99%), 1.71 (19.81% versus 11.60%), and 1.94 (8.60% versus 4.43%) times the corresponding rate among people without disability, respectively. Compared with their nondisabled counterparts, the adjusted odds of overweight and obesity combined, obesity, grade 2 and 3 obesity combined, and grade 3 obesity were 24% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%–36%), 32% (95% CI: 22%–44%), 49% (95% CI: 35%–64%), and 55% (95% CI: 27%–89%) higher among people with any disability, respectively.
Conclusion
People with disabilities have substantially higher risk of obesity compared to their nondisabled peers.
Keywords: Obesity, Overweight, Disability
Introduction
Obesity is a leading risk factor for many adverse health outcomes such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease and certain types of cancer (Villareal et al., 2005). From 1976–1980 to 2011–2012, the prevalence of obesity more than doubled in the U.S. adult population (An, 2014, Fryar et al., 2014). People with disability face various daily challenges, such as pain, financial strain, lack of healthy food choices, difficulty with chewing or swallowing food, medications that cause weight gain or changes in appetite, and functional limitations that reduce one's ability to exercise, which may expose them to an elevated risk of unhealthy body weight (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a).
Existing studies that document disparities in obesity rate between people with and without disability typically focus on one specific disability type (e.g., physical mobility or activities of daily living) and/or use non-nationally representative data (Alley and Chang, 2007, Bowen, 2012, Evers and Mattsson, 2001, Himes, 2000, Houston et al., 2009, Lamb et al., 2000, Launer et al., 1994, Spyropoulos et al., 1991, Sturm et al., 2004, Vincent et al., 2010). This brief report added a new data point to the literature by examining the relationship between various domains of self-reported disability and measured overweight/obesity status using 14 years of data from a national health survey representative of the U.S. population.
Methods
Survey participants
Individual-level data came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2003–2004, 2005–2006, 2007–2008, 2009–2010 and 2011–2012 waves. NHANES is a program of studies conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics to assess the health and nutritional status of children and adults (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b). A multistage probability sampling design is used to select participants representative of the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population.
Among the 38,024 adults 20 years of age and above who participated in the NHANES 1999–2012 waves, the following individuals were excluded from the analyses: missing data on disability measures, body height/weight and/or other covariates, 6310; and pregnant women, 1351. The remaining 30,363 participants were included in the analysis.
Disability domains
Nineteen validated questions were administered to assess five domains of disability (Cook et al., 2006, Farnsworth et al., 2015): activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), leisure and social activities (LSAs), lower extremity mobility (LEM) and general physical activities (GPAs). Each question item evaluated the difficulty an individual had in performing a task without the aid of any equipment, and participants were required to choose from among four difficulty levels: “no difficulty”, “some difficulty”, “much difficulty”, and “unable to do”. ADLs consist of four activities: dressing oneself; walking between rooms on the same floor; getting in and out of bed; and using a fork, knife and drinking from a cup. IADLs consist of three activities: managing money; doing household chores; and preparing meals. LSAs consist of three activities: going out to movies and events; attending social events; and performing leisure activities at home. LEM consists of two activities: walking a quarter mile and walking up 10 steps. GPAs consist of seven activities: stooping, crouching and kneeling; lifting and carrying; standing up from an armless chair; standing for long periods; sitting for long periods; reaching up over one's head; and grasping/holding small objects. A disability is defined as having any difficulty in performing at least one of the activities within a given domain. Five dichotomous variables for ADLs, IADLs, LSAs, LEM, and GPA conditions were constructed, with no disability as their common reference group. No disability refers to having no difficulty in performing any activities within any of the five disability domains. In contrast, any disability refers to having any difficulty in performing at least one of the activities in any of the five disability domains. Among the total effective sample of 30,363, there are 3838, 5309, 3924, 3692, and 9242 participants who reported having ADLs, IADLs, LSAs, LEM, and GPAs (not mutually exclusive as one may qualify for multiple disability domains), respectively, whereas 10,150 participants reported having any disability.
Overweight/obesity status
NHANES respondents' body weight and height were measured by digital scale and stadiometer in the Mobile Examination Center. Specific anthropometry procedures apply to wheelchair users, amputees and people with comprehension or language difficulties. Body mass index (BMI) is defined by weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Four overweight/obesity measures were examined: overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2).
Individual characteristics
The following individual characteristics were controlled in regression analyses: a dichotomous variable for sex (male as the referent group), four age categories (35–49 years of age, 50–64 years of age, and 65 years of age and above, with 20–34 years of age as the referent group), four categories for race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic African American, non-Hispanic other race or multi-race, and Hispanic, with non-Hispanic white as the referent group), a dichotomous variable for education (high school education or lower as the referent group), three categories for marital status (divorced or separated or widowed, and never married, with married as the referent group), three categories for annual household income to poverty ratio (IPR) (IPR < 1.3, and 1.3 ≤ IPR < 3.0, with IPR ≥ 3.0 as the referent group), a dichotomous variable for smoking status (never smoker as the referent group), a dichotomous variable for public or private health insurance coverage (without any health insurance coverage as the referent group), a dichotomous variable for general health status (being in fair or poor health as the referent group), five disease conditions: diabetes, arthritics, coronary health disease, stroke, and cancer (no corresponding diseases as the referent groups), and seven NHANES waves to account for potential nationwide temporal trend and survey wave difference: 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2003–2004, 2005–2006, 2007–2008, 2009–2010, and 2011–2012, with 1999–2000 as the referent group.
Statistical analyses
Logistic regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between disability (five disability domains and any disability) and overweight/obesity status, adjusted by individual characteristics. The four outcome variables are overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2).
In sensitivity analysis, we included interaction terms between disability and age groups, and between disability and racial/ethnic groups, besides their respective main effects in the regression. The estimated coefficients of those interaction terms were mostly nonsignificant at P < 0.05. We therefore reported modeling outcomes from logistic regressions without interaction terms.
All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 13.1 SE version (StataCorp, College Station, TX). NHANES sampling design was incorporated in both descriptive statistics and regression analyses.
Results
Table 1 reports the prevalence of overweight/obesity and individual characteristics of the study sample with and without disability. During 1999–2012, 66.90% of adults 20 years of age and above were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), and 33.01%, 13.78%, and 5.53% were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 or 3 obese (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obese (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2), respectively. Over a quarter (25.99%) of adults reported having any disability in a year. The prevalence of overweight/obesity differed substantially between people with and without disability. The rate of overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) among people with any disability were about 1.14 (73.54% vs. 64.50%), 1.38 (41.37% vs. 29.99%), 1.71 (19.81% vs. 11.60%), and 1.94 (8.60% vs. 4.43%) times the corresponding rate among people without disability, respectively. Compared with their nondisabled counterparts, people with any disability were more likely to be female, older, non-Hispanic white, of lower education and income level, divorced or separated or widowed, former or current smoker, in fair/poor health, covered by health insurance (mostly Medicare), and with various chronic diseases.
Table 1.
Prevalence of obesity and individual characteristics among U.S. adults with and without disability, 1999–2012.
| All |
Any disability |
No disability |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample characteristics | |||
| Sample size | 30,363 | 10,063 | 20,300 |
| Weighted proportion (%) | 100 | 25.99 | 74.01 |
| Overweight/obesity (%) | |||
| Overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) | 66.90 (65.95, 67.86) | 73.54 (72.50, 74.58) | 64.50 (63.36, 65.64) |
| Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) | 33.01 (32.09, 33.94) | 41.37 (40.21, 42.52) | 29.99 (28.93, 31.04) |
| Grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) | 13.78 (13.18, 14.39) | 19.81 (18.87, 20.76) | 11.60 (10.97, 12.23) |
| Grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) | 5.53 (5.17, 5.90) | 8.60 (7.83, 9.37) | 4.43 (4.05, 4.80) |
| Gender (%) | |||
| Female | 51.19 (50.68, 51.71) | 57.05 (56.04, 58.06) | 49.08 (48.40, 49.76) |
| Age (%) | |||
| 20–34 years of age | 28.16 (27.03, 29.29) | 8.95 (8.08, 9.81) | 35.10 (33.73, 36.46) |
| 35–49 years of age | 31.26 (30.28, 32.24) | 18.95 (17.76, 20.15) | 35.71 (34.55, 36.87) |
| 50–64 years of age | 24.08 (23.22, 24.93) | 28.77 (27.54, 30.00) | 22.38 (21.30, 23.46) |
| 65 years of age and above | 16.51 (15.72, 17.29) | 43.33 (41.69, 44.97) | 6.81 (6.33, 7.29) |
| Race/ethnicity (%) | |||
| White, non-Hispanic | 70.94 (68.52, 73.36) | 75.74 (73.17, 78.31) | 69.20 (66.75, 71.66) |
| African American, non-Hispanic | 10.96 (9.62, 12.30) | 10.80 (9.25, 12.34) | 11.02 (9.70, 12.34) |
| Other race/multi-race, non-Hispanic | 5.60 (4.92, 6.28) | 5.00 (4.12, 5.88) | 5.82 (5.10, 6.54) |
| Hispanic | 12.50 (10.69, 14.31) | 8.46 (6.56, 10.37) | 13.96 (12.12, 15.79) |
| Education (%) | |||
| College education and above | 56.97 (55.35, 58.60) | 45.01 (43.09, 46.94) | 61.30 (59.63, 62.96) |
| Marital status (%) | |||
| Married | 63.78 (62.56, 65.00) | 58.25 (56.66, 59.83) | 65.77 (64.42, 67.13) |
| Divorced or separated or widowed | 18.57 (17.90, 19.24) | 31.27 (30.01, 32.53) | 13.99 (13.26, 14.71) |
| Never married | 17.65 (16.45, 18.85) | 10.48 (9.49, 11.48) | 20.24 (18.84, 21.64) |
| Income to poverty ratio (IPR) (%) | |||
| IPR < 1.3 | 21.37 (20.11, 22.62) | 29.62 (27.56, 31.69) | 18.38 (17.25, 19.52) |
| 1.3 ≤ IPR < 3.0 | 28.98 (27.97, 29.99) | 33.77 (32.28, 35.25) | 27.25 (26.14, 28.36) |
| IPR ≥ 3.0 | 49.65 (47.89, 51.42) | 36.61 (34.48, 38.74) | 54.37 (52.53, 56.21) |
| Smoking (%) | |||
| Former or current smoker | 47.66 (46.46, 48.87) | 55.71 (54.31, 57.11) | 44.76 (43.43, 46.09) |
| Current health status (%) | |||
| Good, very good or excellent health | 82.88 (82.09, 83.68) | 61.98 (60.30, 63.65) | 90.44 (89.85, 91.03) |
| Health insurance (%) | |||
| With health insurance | 81.25 (80.24, 82.26) | 88.49 (87.49, 89.49) | 78.63 (77.45, 79.81) |
| Chronic condition (%) | |||
| Diabetes | 7.80 (7.36, 8.23) | 16.95 (15.87, 18.04) | 4.49 (4.15, 4.83) |
| Arthritis | 23.64 (22.76, 24.52) | 52.99 (51.64, 54.33) | 13.03 (12.35, 13.71) |
| Coronary artery disease | 3.36 (3.07, 3.65) | 8.65 (7.88, 9.42) | 1.44 (1.22, 1.67) |
| Stroke | 2.73 (2.49, 2.97) | 7.92 (7.19, 8.66) | 0.85 (0.71, 0.99) |
| Cancer | 8.77 (8.33, 9.20) | 17.56 (16.59, 18.53) | 5.59 (5.16, 6.03) |
| Survey wave (%) | |||
| 1999–2000 | 11.07 (9.31, 12.84) | 9.49 (7.63, 11.35) | 11.65 (9.81, 13.48) |
| 2001–2002 | 13.82 (12.57, 15.08) | 13.05 (11.46, 14.64) | 14.10 (12.81, 15.39) |
| 2003–2004 | 14.42 (12.63, 16.20) | 16.66 (13.96, 19.37) | 13.61 (12.01, 15.20) |
| 2005–2006 | 15.00 (13.32, 16.67) | 14.83 (12.67, 16.99) | 15.06 (13.30, 16.82) |
| 2007–2008 | 14.83 (13.26, 16.40) | 15.05 (12.71, 17.38) | 14.75 (13.09, 16.41) |
| 2009–2010 | 15.10 (13.54, 16.66) | 15.15 (13.35, 16.94) | 15.08 (13.52, 16.65) |
| 2011–2012 | 15.76 (13.99, 17.53) | 15.77 (13.32, 18.22) | 15.75 (13.88, 17.63) |
Notes: Individual-level data from NHANES 1999–2012 waves. NHANES sampling design was incorporated in estimating the percentages. 95% confidence intervals are in parentheses.
Across disability domains, the prevalence of ADLs, IADLs, LSAs, LEM and GPAs in the U.S. adult population were 9.31%, 9.65%, 13.33%, 9.23% and 23.79%, respectively (not shown in table). The obesity rate in any of the 5 disability domains was noticeably higher than their nondisabled counterparts. For instance, the rate of overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) among people with LEM were about 1.18, 1.53, 2.02, and 2.32 times the corresponding rate among people without disability, respectively. People with multiple disabilities tended to have even higher obesity rate compared to those with a single disability condition. The rate of overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) among people with a single disability condition was 71.92%, 34.50%, 12.77%, and 5.07%, respectively, whereas that among people with four or more disability conditions was 76.67%, 51.27%, 27.91%, and 13.32%.
Table 2 reports the estimated odds ratios of obesity from logistic regressions. Compared to those without disability, the adjusted odds of overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) were 24% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14, 1.36), 32% (AOR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.44), 49% (AOR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.35, 1.64), and 55% (AOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.27, 1.89) higher among people with any disability, respectively. The estimated odds ratios of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) across all five disability domains (ADLs, IADLs, LSAs, LEM and GPAs) were statistically significant at P < 0.001. For instance, compared to those without disability, the adjusted odds of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), and grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) were 26% (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.09, 1.45), 51% (AOR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.29, 1.78), and 59% (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.23, 2.06) higher among people with a disability in ADLs, respectively.
Table 2.
Estimated odds ratios of obesity among U.S. adults, 1999–2012.
| Disability domain | Overweight and obesity combined (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) | Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) | Grade 2 and 3 obesity combined (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) | Grade 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any disability | 1.24 (1.14, 1.36) | 1.32 (1.22, 1.44) | 1.49 (1.35, 1.64) | 1.55 (1.27, 1.89) |
| Activities of daily living (ADLs) | 1.15 (0.99, 1.33) | 1.26 (1.09, 1.45) | 1.51 (1.29, 1.78) | 1.59 (1.23, 2.06) |
| Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) | 1.11 (0.99, 1.25) | 1.21 (1.09, 1.35) | 1.43 (1.25, 1.65) | 1.43 (1.12, 1.82) |
| Leisure and social activities (LSAs) | 1.11 (0.98, 1.26) | 1.31 (1.16, 1.47) | 1.60 (1.37, 1.86) | 1.55 (1.22, 1.97) |
| Lower extremity mobility (LEM) | 1.38 (1.20, 1.59) | 1.54 (1.37, 1.73) | 1.86 (1.59, 2.19) | 1.85 (1.38, 2.49) |
| General physical activities (GPAs) | 1.28 (1.16, 1.40) | 1.36 (1.24, 1.48) | 1.54 (1.38, 1.71) | 1.61 (1.30, 1.99) |
Notes: Individual-level data (N = 30,363) from NHANES 1999–2012 waves. Logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the odds ratios of obesity among U.S. adults, adjusted by individual characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, smoking status, health insurance coverage, general health status, chronic conditions, and NHANES survey wave) and accounting for NHANES sampling design. 95% confidence intervals are in parentheses.
Discussion
One fundamental goal in the Healthy People 2020 is to “achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups” (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). This study found that substantial disparities in overweight/obesity prevalence are present between U.S. adults with and without disability, and the gap persists even after accounting for differences in individual sociodemographics and health/disease conditions. The exceptionally high obesity risk may prevent people with disability from achieving their fullest health potential, interfere with daily activities, and significantly reduce quality of life.
This study has important limitations. Participants' disability conditions were self-reported and subject to social desirability bias. The study design is observational and cross-sectional, so that the estimated relationship between disability status and obesity should be interpreted as an association rather than causation. Using data from a nationally representative longitudinal survey of community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults, An and Shi (2015) found prior-wave unhealthy body weight to prospectively predict disability onset. This brief report examined obesity in relation to different disability domains. Future studies are warranted to explore the relationship between unhealthy body weight and disability severities (ranging from no difficulty to unable to do certain activities), and more importantly, the potential mediation effects from diet and physical activity.
In conclusion, using 14 years of data from a nationally representative survey, people with disability are found to have a markedly higher overweight/obesity rate compared to their nondisabled peers.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. The authors declare that there is no funding source related to this study.
References
- Alley D.E., Chang V.W. The changing relationship of obesity and disability, 1988–2004. JAMA. 2007;298(17):2020–2027. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.17.2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- An R. Prevalence and trends of adult obesity in the US, 1999–2012. ISRN Obes. 2014:185132. doi: 10.1155/2014/185132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- An R., Shi Y. Body weight status and onset of functional limitations in U.S. middle-aged and older adults. Disabil. Health J. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.02.003. (On-line first) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bowen M.E. The relationship between body weight, frailty, and the disablement process. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2012;67(5):618–626. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbs067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey questionnaires, datasets, and related documentation. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes_questionnaires.htm
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Overweight and obesity among people with disabilities. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/documents/obesityFactsheet2010.pdf
- Cook C.E., Richardson J.K., Pietrobon R., Braga L., Silva H.M., Turner D. Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disabil. Rehabil. 2006;28(15):929–935. doi: 10.1080/09638280500404263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evers L.U., Mattsson E. Functional limitations linked to high body mass index, age and current pain in obese women. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2001;25(6):893–899. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Farnsworth J.L., Ragan B.G., Kang M. Rasch calibration of the 20-Item NHANES Physical Function Questionnaire. 2015. http://aahperd.confex.com/aahperd/2015/webprogram/Paper20393.html
- Fryar C.D., Carroll M.D., Ogden C.L. Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and extreme obesity among adults: United States, 1960–1962 through 2011–2012. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_11_12/obesity_adult_11_12.pdf
- Himes C.L. Obesity, disease, and functional limitation in later life. Demography. 2000;37(1):73–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Houston D.K., Ding J., Nicklas B.J. Overweight and obesity over the adult life course and incident mobility limitation in older adults: the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009;169(8):927–936. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lamb S.E., Guralnik J.M., Buchner D.M. Factors that modify the association between knee pain and mobility limitation in older women: the Women's Health and Aging study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2000;59(5):331–337. doi: 10.1136/ard.59.5.331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Launer L.J., Harris T., Rumpel C., Madans J. Body mass index, weight change, and risk of mobility disability in middle-aged and older women. The epidemiologic follow-up study of NHANES I. JAMA. 1994;271(14):1093–1098. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spyropoulos P., Pisciotta J.C., Pavlou K.N., Cairns M.A., Simon S.R. Biomechanical gait analysis in obese men. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1991;72(13):1065–1070. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sturm R., Ringel J.S., Andreyeva T. Increasing obesity rates and disability trends. Health Aff. 2004;23(2):199–205. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.199. (Millwood) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- US Department of Health and Human Services The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Phase I report: Recommendations for the framework and format of Healthy People 2020. Section IV. Advisory Committee findings and recommendations. 2008. http://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/default/files/PhaseI_0.pdf
- Villareal D., Apovian C., Kushner R., Klein S. Obesity in older adults: technical review and position statement of the American Society for Nutrition and NAASO, The Obesity Society. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005;82(5):923–934. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/82.5.923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vincent H.K., Vincent K.R., Lamb K.M. Obesity and mobility disability in the older adult. Obes. Rev. 2010;11(8):568–579. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00703.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]