Article Text

Agreement between routine and research measurement of infant height and weight
  1. M Bryant1,2,
  2. G Santorelli2,
  3. L Fairley2,
  4. E S Petherick2,
  5. R Bhopal3,
  6. D A Lawlor4,5,
  7. K Tilling4,5,
  8. L D Howe4,5,
  9. D Farrar2,
  10. N Cameron6,
  11. M Mohammed7,
  12. J Wright2,
  13. the Born in Bradford Childhood Obesity Scientific Group
  1. 1Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  2. 2Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Bradford, UK
  3. 3Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  4. 4MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  5. 5School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  6. 6School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
  7. 7School of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Maria Bryant, Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; m.j.bryant{at}leeds.ac.uk

Abstract

In many countries, routine data relating to growth of infants are collected as a means of tracking health and illness up to school age. These have potential to be used in research. For health monitoring and research, data should be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to determine the agreement between length/height and weight measurements from routine infant records and researcher-collected data.

Methods Height/length and weight at ages 6, 12 and 24 months from the longitudinal UK birth cohort (born in Bradford; n=836–1280) were compared with routine data collected by health visitors within 2 months of the research data (n=104–573 for different comparisons). Data were age adjusted and compared using Bland Altman plots.

Results There was agreement between data sources, albeit weaker for height than for weight. Routine data tended to underestimate length/height at 6 months (0.5 cm (95% CI −4.0 to 4.9)) and overestimate it at 12 (−0.3 cm (95% CI −0.5 to 4.0)) and 24 months (0.3 cm (95% CI −4.0 to 3.4)). Routine data slightly overestimated weight at all three ages (range −0.04 kg (95% CI −1.2 to 0.9) to −0.04 (95% CI −0.7 to 0.6)). Limits of agreement were wide, particularly for height. Differences were generally random, although routine data tended to underestimate length in taller infants and underestimate weight in lighter infants.

Conclusions Routine data can provide an accurate and feasible method of data collection for research, though wide limits of agreement between data sources may be observed. Differences could be due to methodological issues; but may relate to variability in clinical practice. Continued provision of appropriate training and assessment is essential for health professionals responsible for collecting routine data.

  • Growth
  • Monitoring
  • routine data
  • PCHR
  • research

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.