Objective To examine the prevalence of overweight and obesity in firefighters. Methods Body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and body fat percentage (BF%) were assessed in 478 career and 199 volunteer male firefighters from randomly selected departments. Results High prevalence rates of overweight + obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) were found in career (79.5%; 33.5%) and volunteer firefighters (78.4%; 43.2%). False-positive obesity misclassification based on BMI, compared to waist circumference and BF%, was low (9.8% and 2.9%, respectively). False negatives were much higher: 32.9% and 13.0%. Obese firefighters demonstrated unfavorable cardiovascular disease (CVD) profiles. Conclusions The prevalence of overweight and obesity exceeded that of the US general population. Contrary to common wisdom, obesity was even more prevalent when assessed by BF% than by BMI, and misclassifying muscular firefighters as obese by using BMI occurred infrequently.

Many meta-analysts incorrectly use correlations or standardized mean difference statistics to compute effect sizes on dichotomous data. Odds ratios and their logarithms should almost always be preferred for such data. This article reviews the issues and shows how to use odds ratios in meta-analytic data, both alone and in combination with other effect size estimators. Examples illustrate procedures for estimating the weighted average of such effect sizes and methods for computing variance estimates, confidence intervals, and homogeneity tests. Descriptions of fixed-and random-effects models help determine whether effect sizes are functions of study characteristics, and a random-effects regression model, previously unused for odds ratio data, is described. Although all but the latter of these procedures are already widely known in areas such as medicine and epidemiology, the absence of their use in psychology suggests a need for this description.

BackgroundPrevious investigations suggest an important role of social support in the outcomes of patients treated for ischemic heart disease. The ENRICHD Social Support Instrument (ESSI) is a 7-item self-report survey that assesses social support. Validity and reliability of the ESSI, however, has not been formally tested in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsThe ESSI, along with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), was sequentially administered to a cohort of 271 patients undergoing PCI. The test-retest reliability was examined with an intra-class correlation coefficient by comparing scores among 174 patients who completed both instruments 5 and 6 months after their procedure. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha at the time of patients' baseline procedure. The concurrent validity of the ESSI was assessed by comparing scores between depressed (MHI-5 score < 44) vs. non-depressed patients. The correlation between the ESSI and the SF-36 Social Functioning sub-scale, an accepted measure of social functioning, was also examined.ResultsTest-retest reliability showed no significant differences in mean scores among ESSI questionnaires administered 1 month apart (27.8+/-1.4 vs 27.8+/-1.5, p = 0.98). The intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.94 and Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Mean ESSI scores were significantly lower among depressed vs. non-depressed patients (24.6+/-1.7 vs 27+/-1.4, p < 0.018) and a positive albeit modest correlation with social functioning was seen (r = 0.19, p = 0.002).ConclusionThe ESSI appears to be a valid and reliable measure of social support in patients undergoing treatment for coronary artery disease. It may prove to be a valuable method of controlling for patient variability in outcomes studies where the outcomes are related to patients' social support.