Obesity-related knowledge and body mass index: a national survey in Portugal.

Purpose: Obesity-related knowledge predicts weight control but previous studies only comprise individuals with excessive weight and assess very specific aspects of knowledge. This study aims to evaluate several domains of obesity-related knowledge according to the body mass index (BMI) in a representative sample of Portuguese-speaking dwellers in mainland Portugal.

Methods: A sample of 1624 participants aged 16-79 years was analyzed. Eighteen questions comprising eight obesity domains were asked: prevalence, physical activity, number of calories, adiposity location, causes, diagnosis, treatment and consequences; each one was dichotomized into correct/incorrect knowledge.

Results: The majority of Portuguese-speaking dwellers recognized the benefits of physical activity, the risks of abdominal obesity and most consequences of excessive weight, independently of their BMI. However, knowledge gaps were identified regarding prevalence, calories and BMI diagnosis. BMI influenced specific obesity-related knowledge: participants with a normal BMI knew the BMI formula more often, identified 22 as normal BMI more frequently and had the highest proportion of correct knowledge regarding the number of calories an adult should eat; obese individuals identified natural products as not being good treatments for obesity more often. After adjusting for age, sex and educational level, obese individuals identified natural products and supplements as not being good obesity treatments more often.

Conclusions: Obesity-related knowledge gaps (prevalence, calories, and diagnosis) were identified among Portuguese adults. Moreover, correct knowledge does not necessarily translate into a healthier BMI. Besides the dissemination of accurate information, public health interventions should focus on the transfer of knowledge to behaviors that will guarantee better weight management.

Evidence-based Medicine Rankings: Level V: Opinions of respected authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.