Comparison of three methods for measuring height in rehabilitation inpatients and the impact on body mass index classification: An open prospective study |
| |
| Authors: | Karen E. McDougall Alison J. Stewart Alison M. Argiriou Catherine E. Huggins Peter W. New |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Nutrition and Dietetics, Community and Allied Health, Rehabilitation and Aged Care Services, Monash Health, Cheltenham, Victoria, Australia;2. Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, and Allied Health Research Unit, Monash Health, Cheltenham, Victoria, Australia;3. Medicine Program, Rehabilitation and Aged Care Services, Monash Health, Cheltenham, Victoria, Australia;4. Epworth‐Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Southern Medical School, Monash University, Richmond, Victoria, Australia;5. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Aim To compare standing height, estimated current height and demi‐span estimated height and examine their impact on body mass index (BMI) classification. Methods Cross‐sectional data was collected on 104 patients admitted to an adult rehabilitation ward and seen by the dietitian. Patient's standing, estimated current height and demi‐span estimated height were collected and grouped by age: 19–64 and ≥65 years. Results The limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) for estimated current height compared with standing height were +9.9 cm and ?7.9 cm, in contrast to +8.7 cm and ?14.3 cm for demi‐span estimated height. Demi‐span underestimated height when compared with standing height in both age groups, 19–64 years: (mean ± SD) 3.0 ± 6.5 cm (P = 0.001, n = 68) and ≥ 65 year age group 4.0 ± 6.0 cm (P < 0.001, n = 36), resulting in a significantly greater mean BMI (analysis of variance P < 0.001, P = 0.02). In the 19‐64 and ≥65 year age groups, 3% (2/68) and 10% (4/36) of patients, respectively, had a different BMI classification using demi‐span estimated height compared with standing height. Conclusions Estimated current height is a simple and practical alternative if standing height is unable to be obtained when performing a nutrition assessment. Demi‐span estimated height should be used with caution when calculating BMI to assess nutritional status, particularly in the elderly. |
| |
| Keywords: | anthropometry body mass index height nutritional assessment rehabilitation |
|
|
