National Child Measurement Programme

2006/07 school year

Headline Results

Compiled by Sally Cornfield on behalf of PAN-WM

Introduction• The National Child Measurement Programme provides the first reliable,

local-level assessment of childhood obesity in England.

• In total 876,416 valid measurements were received – approximately 80% of those eligiblei.

• 435,927 children were measured in Reception. 440,489 children in Year 6 were measuredi. (Table 1 details the breakdown for gender, year group & BMI classification)

• The 80% coverage represents an increased participation rate of 32%. Only 48% of eligible children were measured in 2005/06i.

• A breakdown of West Midlands prevalence and coverage by PCT can be seen in Table 2i.

• When interpreting the results it is important to consider the possible effects of participation rate on prevalence rates. Year 6 estimates may be underestimated!

Ye

ar 6

Re

cep

tio

n

Table 1Overweight

but not Obese

Obese Overweight & Obese

combined

Number measured

Boys 13.6% 10.7% 24.3% 223,361

Girls 12.4% 9.0% 21.5% 212,566

Both 13.0% 9.9% 22.9% 435,927

Boys 14.2% 19.0% 33.2% 227,984

Girls 14.1% 15.8% 30.0% 212,505

Both 14.2% 17.5% 31.6% 440,489

Table 2Overweight (Prevalence) Obese (Prevalence) Participation rate %

PCT Reception Year 6 Reception Year 6 Reception Year 6 Total

BEN 12.1% 13.6% 10.3% 20.3% 88% 87% 87%

Coventry 14.6% 13.7% 11.3% 19.4% 83% 89% 86%

Dudley 13.9% 15.1% 11.4% 23.4% 97% 89% 92%

HOB 10.7% 13.9% 12.7% 23.8% 86% 88% 87%

Herefordshire 12.4% 13.9% 8.9% 16.7% 83% 77% 80%

North Staffs 15.3% 15.1% 12.4% 18.8% 83% 86% 85%

Sandwell 11.3% 13.5% 10.6% 20.2% 68% 72% 70%

Shropshire 14.8% 13.4% 10.1% 16.8% 86% 80% 83%

Solihull 12.1% 13.9% 8.9% 14.5% 79% 71% 74%

South B’ham 13.3% 14.4% 10.5% 19.5% 93% 58% 74%

South Staffs 12.1% 14.1% 8.4% 16.8% 61% 80% 71%

Stoke On Trent 14.6% 14.1% 10.9% 20.4% 74% 73% 73%

Telford & Wrekin 17.0% 16.0% 12.5% 19.0% 85% 84% 85%

Walsall 12.3% 14.7% 10.3% 19.4% 92% 87% 89%

Warwickshire 13.6% 13.9% 8.2% 15.6% 87% 79% 83%

Wolverhampton 12.6% 14.7% 10.8% 25.4% 79% 91% 85%

Worcestershire 15.7% 15.1% 9.8% 15.2% 82% 76% 79%

Key Findings• In Reception almost 1 in 4 of children measured were either overweight

or obesei. (Table 1)

• In Year 6 nearly 1 in 3 children measured were either overweight or obesei. (Table 1)

• The prevalence was significantly higher in boys than in girls in both age groupsi. (Figure 1)

• The prevalence of obesity is significantly higher in Year 6 than in Receptioni. (Figure 1)

• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher than the national average in the North East, West Midlands & London SHAs for both school yearsi. (Figures 2 & 3)

• Participation rates suggest that there might be higher levels of opting out among children with higher BMIsi.

Figure 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

Reception Boys Reception Girls Year 6 Boys Year 6 Girls

Prevalence of obese & overweight children by year & sex, 2006/07

Boys Overweight

Boys Obese

Boys Combined

Girls Overweight

Girls Obese

Girls Combined

Figure 2Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Reception by SHA,

2006/07

Figure 3Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Year 6 by SHA,

2006/07

Key Findings• The mean weight for children in Reception is 19.8kg i. (Figure 4)

• The mean weight for children in Year 6 is 40.9kg, more than twice that for Receptioni. (Figure 5)

• Weight is more varied in Year 6 than in Reception i. (Figures 4 & 5)

• Using Figures 4 & 5 it is clear that the distributions are not symmetrical. Both distributions are positively skewed (the right tail is longer than the left). This is due to a greater proportion of children at the higher end of the weight scale i.

• The skew is more pronounced for Year 6i. (Figure 5)

Figures 4 & 5Weight distributions of children in Reception & Year 6, 2006/07

Key Findings• The mean height for children in Reception is 110.4cmi. (Figure 6)

• The mean height for children in Year 6 is 146.3cmi. (Figure 7)

• Both distributions are symmetrical, without the skews that are evident for weighti.

• The mean BMI for children in Reception is 16.2kg/m2. (Figure 8)i

• The mean BMI for children in Year 6 is 18.9kg/m2. (Figure 9)i

• Using Figures 8 & 9 it is clear that the distributions are not symmetrical. Both distributions are positively skewed (the right tail is longer than the left). This is due to a greater number of children at the higher end of the BMI scalei. The skew is more pronounced in Year 6i.

Figures 6 & 7Height distributions of children in Reception & Year 6, 2006/07

Figures 8 & 9BMI distributions of children in Reception & Year 6, 2006/07

Key Findings• The prevalence of obese & overweight children by year group and

sex are shown in Figures 10 & 11i.

• The percentage of children who are overweight is only slightly higher in Year 6 than in Reception, however the prevalence of obesity is significantly higheri.

• In Reception the prevalence of overweight children is greater than the prevalence of obese. In Year 6 the opposite is true i.

• Figure 12 compares the prevalence of overweight & obese combined children in Year 6, by SHA. (The bars are ranked by prevalence in Year 6)i.

• Areas with high obesity prevalence in one year group tend to also have high obesity prevalence in the other year groupi. (Figure 12 & Figure 2 & 3)

Figure 10Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Reception, by sex

2006/07

Figure 11Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Year 6, by sex

2006/07

Figure 12Prevalence of “obese & overweight combined" children by Year & SHA

2006/07

Key Findings• The top four SHAs (of which the West Midlands is one) occupy the

same rank order for children in both yearsi. (Figures 2, 3 & 12).

• There is a significant positive relationship between deprivation (measured by IMD score) & obesity prevalence in children i. (Figure 13)

• The gradient is steeper in Year 6i. (Figure 13)

• Using the percentage of children eligible for free school meals (FSM) as an indicator of deprivation also shows a significant positive relationship between obesity prevalence and deprivation i. (Figure 14)

• Using the line of best fir (r2) FSM data provides a better predictor of obesity prevalence in Year 6 than IMD scorei. (Figure 14

Figure 13Prevalence of obese children against 2007 IMD score by LA, 2006/07

Figure 14Prevalence of obese children against percentage of children eligible for

FSM by LA, 2006/07

Key Findings• Since a fairly low percentage (32%, n.279,699)of records were

returned with ethnicity information, the following statements should be treated with cautioni.

• Figures 15 &16 show the prevalence of obese & overweight children by ethnic categoryi.

• In Reception obesity prevalence in the following ethnic groups is higher than the national average: Black African, Any Other Black Background, Black Caribbean, White & Black Caribbean, Any Other Ethnic Group, Bangladeshi, Pakistani & Any Other White Background. Prevalence is lower than the national average for: Chinese, White & Asian and Indian & White British. For many of these groups, the difference is small in percentage terms but statistically significanti. (Figure 15)

• In Year 6 obesity prevalence is significantly higher than the national average for all children in all ethnic groups except Chinese, White & Asian and Indian & White Britishi. (Figure 16)

Figure 15Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Reception by ethnic

category, 2006/07

Figure 16Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Year 6 by ethnic

category, 2006/07

Key Findings• Collection of home postcode was optional. 58% (n.505,583)

records included home postcodes. Each record was assigned a rural/urban classification from the lower super output area that the postcode was aggregated to.

• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher in urban areas than in non-urban areas for both yearsi. (Figures 17 & 18)

• Overweight prevalence is similar between areas in both years i.

• Obesity prevalence is significantly higher in Year 6 than in Reception in all areasi.

• The prevalence of overweight children from urban areas is significantly lower in Reception than in Year 6 i. (Figure 18)

Figure 17Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Reception by

rural/urban classification, 2006/07

Figure 18Prevalence of obese & overweight children in Year 6 by

rural/urban classification, 2006/07

Considerations• Measurements could be taken at any time during the 2006/07

academic year. Consequently some children were almost two years older than others in the same school year at the point of measurement i.

• Comparisons between the 2005/06 & 2006/07 results have not been made because the increase in participation rates from 48% to 80% may skew comparisonsi.

• Prevalence rates were calculated by deriving every child’s SMI & referencing the age and sex-specific UK National BMI percentiles to count the number of children defined as overweight or obesei.

• Geographical analyses are base on the child’s school rather than home addressi.

• NHS Public Observatories are expected to produce more detailed analysis in due coursei.

Reference

• i National Child Measurement Programme: 2006/07 school year, headline results. (2008) The Information Centre. Available at:

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/ncmp/ncmp0607/NCMP%202006%2007.%20Bulletin%20Final.pdf