ArticleBMC public health2025
Insights into youth nutritional status in Serbia: assessing prevalence and trend in the context of social determinants.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disparities in Healthcare Utilization by Settlement Type in Serbia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to assess the prevalence and distribution of different levels of nutritional status among young people, to examine its association with social determinants of health, and to analyse its trend over time.
methodThe research was a secondary analysis of the data from four national health surveys of the Serbian population. The research sample included 11,243 respondents, aged 15 to 29, both genders. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied to examine the association between socio-demographic characteristics, lifestyle, health status, and the level of respondents' nutritional status. The trend analysis of the levels of nutritional status by the research years was done using multiple linear regression in adjusted models.
resultsA total of 63.3% of respondents had body mass index (BMI) in the normal weight range, 11.7% were underweight, 18.5% were pre-obese, and 6.2% were obese. The average BMI of the study participants was 23.01 ± 6.01. The female respondents were more frequently underweight, and the male respondents were pre-obese and obese. Different factors were associated with different nutritional status levels - for underweight: female gender (OR: 5.29), age 15-19 (OR: 0.06), being married/ in a relationship (OR: 0.69), living in Belgrade region (OR: 1.35), presence of chronic diseases (OR: 0.56), consumption of psychoactive substances (OR:0.56) and non-smoking (OR: 0.70); for pre-obesity: female gender (OR: 0.38), ages 15-19 (OR:0.36) and 20-24 (OR:0.65), being married/ in a relationship (OR: 1.39), having high wealth index (OR:1.30) and non-smoking status (OR:1.32); for obesity: female gender (OR: 0.36), ages 15-19 (OR:0.35) and 20-24 (OR:0.51), being married/ in a relationship (OR:2.31) and primary education level (OR:2.17). The trend analysis of nutritional status level in the research period showed an increase in the average value of the BMI of the respondents in the entire sample, as well as the prevalence of obesity, while the prevalence of underweight and pre-obesity decreased.
conclusionThe research provided insight into the specific factors associated with and trends of levels of nutritional status of the young, leading to the conclusion that preventive and interventional public health programs and strategies must be fully adapted to their specific needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.