Ming-Chin Yeh

Determinants of Latina obesity in the United States: the role of selective acculturation.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Hispanic American women in particular have higher rates of obesity than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. In this article, the authors review the existing literature on acculturation as it relates to obesity and health behaviors among U.S. Hispanic women. In addition, a conceptual framework is proposed to examine factors contributing to obesity through “selective acculturation.” This concept challenges traditionally held unilateral assumptions that underscore Hispanic womens unhealthful behavioral patterns by explaining a process whereby Hispanic women both maintain some older health-related behaviors and acquire new ones once they settle in a new culture.

“Do Real Women Have Curves?” Paradoxical Body Images among Latinas in New York City

This paper examines Latinas’ assessments of their individual body shape and weight vis-à-vis their beliefs and attitudes regarding mainstream and alternative body images. A mixed method data collection system was used based on individual instruments and focus group guidelines. While individual measures revealed participants’ preference for thinner body types than what they actually considered themselves to be, group data underscore contradictory body paradigms, defined as Latinas’ Paradoxical Body Images (LAPABI). Findings suggest the prevalence of a mainstream stereotype represented by the fit/thin White woman as the ultimate body ideal, along with the Latina curvy shape as its counter-image. The paper further discusses the importance of the media, and of divergent cultural values, in supporting these co-existing body ideals, as well as the need for more studies addressing their combined effect on Latinas’ obesity patterns and their weight-control efforts.

Barriers and Facilitating Factors Affecting Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the current fruit and vegetable consumption level in the United States and analyzes how it compares to the dietary guidelines promulgated by the US government. A healthy diet includes eating fruits and vegetables. Although many people experience barriers inhibiting fruit and vegetable consumption, facilitators also exist that promote fruit and vegetable consumption. Fruit and vegetable consumption can be measured in many ways, such as number of times eaten daily, number of cups, and number of servings. The US government publishes the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, sets public health dietary goals in documents such as Healthy People 2010, conducts nutritional surveillance and surveys to assess if the population is meeting these guidelines, and plans food and nutrition education programs following these recommendations. Recommendations for an individual’s fruit and vegetable consumption are based on the Dietary Guidelines and are published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for public use in the form of the online educational tool “MyPyramid.” Of all age groups, children aged 2–3 years are most likely to meet current fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines, with an estimated 48% of children meeting the combined recommendation of 1 cup daily. Fruit and vegetable consumption also varies across other demographic characteristics. Non-Hispanic blacks are significantly less likely to meet USDA guidelines than whites. Latinos report higher intakes of fruits and vegetables than whites and blacks, but this has also been reported to be a decreasing effect when compared to social acculturation.

Feasibility and Reliability of the System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY) for Measuring Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity in Children Visiting an Interactive Children’s Museum Exhibition

Purpose: To test the feasibility and reliability of a direct observation method for measuring moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in children visiting an interactive children’s museum exhibition. Design: Direct observation was used to assess MVPA in children visiting an interactive children’s museum exhibition on 2 weekend days in winter 2013. Setting: The Children’s Museum of Manhattan’s EatSleepPlay™: Building Health Every Day exhibition. Participants: Children (group level) visiting the museum exhibition. Measures: System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY). Analyses: Interobserver reliability was analyzed for MVPA and activity type. Two-group analyses were conducted using a series of Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: A total of 545 children were observed over 288 observations. No significant differences were found between observers for MVPA (r = .91, P = .6804) or activity type (κ = .90, P = .6334). Children participated in MVPA during 35.2% of all observations. No significant differences were found for participation in MVPA between boys (37.6%) and girls (32.8%, P = .1589). Conclusion: The SOPLAY may be a useful tool for measuring MVPA in interactive children’s museum exhibitions. Research with multiple museum settings and diverse groups of children over longer periods of time is warranted to further establish the feasibility and reliability of the SOPLAY for measuring MVPA in this novel setting.

Reply to Walter et al.’s letter to the editor

We appreciate Dr. Walter and his colleagues’ pointing out a limitation concerning (A2) assumption. In short, we adopted the A2 assumption because in preference option randomized design (PORD), there are no participants who prefer treatment B in AS (even though there are participants who prefer treatment B in RA, that is BA), or those who prefer treatment A in BS (even though there are participants who prefer treatment A in RB, that is AB). In theory, however, it might have been more reasonable to assume that P(AAjAS)1⁄4P(ABjBR[AB)1⁄4P(ABjRB)/ (1 P(BBjRB))1⁄4P(ABjRB)/(1 P(BAjRA)), this equation holding by a strict NSBR (no selection bias from randomization) assumption, and likewise P(BBjBS)1⁄4P(BAjRA)/(1 P(ABjRB)). However, these assumptions are restricted by the following conditions: P(ABjRB) 1 P(BAjRA)1⁄4P(ASjRA) and P(BAjRA) 1 P(ABjRB)1⁄4 P(BSjRA) so that P(AAjAS) 1 and P(BBjBS) 1. Therefore, the A2 assumption, albeit limited, might be necessary so that such a restriction can be avoided. Although Walter and his colleagues asserted in their letter that ‘‘. . . a valid analysis for this type of study is already available’’ and ‘‘. . . applies to the PORD design in particular,’’ we find that their approach based on post hoc preference analyses of parallel randomized trials is invalid by implicitly assuming that marginal or global probabilities are the same as conditional probabilities on treatment arms. Furthermore, their approach does not have anything to do with power analysis of preference trials. Specifically, their Table 1 (Box 1) classified study subjects into five mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups, and they assigned probabilities p1 to p5 to Groups 1 to 5, respectively. The probabilities p1 to p5 are all marginal or global probabilities, but not conditional probabilities on treatment arms, so that the sum of p1 to p5 is one, that is

Erratum to: Duration of US Residence and Obesity Risk in NYC Chinese Immigrants.

The footnote to address the correspondence in the original copy of the article is an error. The contact information and affiliation only correspond to the first author, Aimee Afable. The correct affiliations for the other coauthors are mentioned below.