SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of physical illnesses that are linked with obesity and inactivity. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:- The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment area- Of the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illnessThe estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 7 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.LIMITATIONS1. GPs do not have catchments that are mutually exclusive from each other: they overlap, with some geographic areas being covered by 30+ practices. This dataset should be viewed in combination with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset to identify where there are areas that are covered by multiple GP practices but at least one of those GP practices did not provide data. Results of the analysis in these areas should be interpreted with caution, particularly if the levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses appear to be significantly lower than the immediate surrounding areas.2. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).3. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.4. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of these illnesses. TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:- Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

National Obesity Percentages by State. Explanation of Field Attributes:Obesity - The percent of the state population that is considered obese from the 2015 CDC BRFSS Survey.

Obesity percentages for Lake County, Illinois. Explanation of field attributes: Pct_Obese – The percent of people in the zip code who are considered obese, defined as having a BMI greater than or equal to 30. ObsOrOvrwt –The percent of people in the zip code who are considered overweight (defined as having a BMI greater than or equal to 25 but less than 30) or obese (defined as having a BMI greater than or equal to 30).

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (aged 17+) with diabetes mellitus was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with diabetes mellitus was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with depression, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have diabetes mellitus, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from diabetes mellitus, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with diabetes mellitus within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of diabetes mellitus, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of diabetes mellitus.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of cancer (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to cancer (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with cancer was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with cancer was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with cancer, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have cancer, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from cancer, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with cancer within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of cancer, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of cancer.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.Population data: Mid-2019 (June 30) Population Estimates for Middle Layer Super Output Areas in England and Wales. © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown Copyright 2020.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. © Crown Copyright 2020.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

West Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas are the U.S. states with the highest percentage of their population who are obese. The states with the lowest percentage of their population who are obese include Colorado, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Obesity in the United States Obesity is a growing problem in many countries around the world, but the United States has the highest rate of obesity among all OECD countries. The prevalence of obesity in the United States has risen steadily over the previous two decades, with no signs of declining. Obesity in the U.S. is more common among women than men, and overweight and obesity rates are higher among African Americans than any other race or ethnicity. Causes and health impacts Obesity is most commonly the result of a combination of poor diet, overeating, physical inactivity, and a genetic susceptibility. Obesity is associated with various negative health impacts, including an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, certain types of cancer, and diabetes type 2. As of 2022, around 8.4 percent of the U.S. population had been diagnosed with diabetes. Diabetes is currently the eighth leading cause of death in the United States.

This report presents information on obesity, physical activity and diet drawn together from a variety of sources for England. More information can be found in the source publications which contain a wider range of data and analysis. Each section provides an overview of key findings, as well as providing links to relevant documents and sources. Some of the data have been published previously by NHS Digital. A data visualisation tool (link provided within the key facts) allows users to select obesity related hospital admissions data for any Local Authority (as contained in the data tables), along with time series data from 2013/14. Regional and national comparisons are also provided. The report includes information on: Obesity related hospital admissions, including obesity related bariatric surgery. Obesity prevalence. Physical activity levels. Walking and cycling rates. Prescriptions items for the treatment of obesity. Perception of weight and weight management. Food and drink purchases and expenditure. Fruit and vegetable consumption. Key facts cover the latest year of data available: Hospital admissions: 2018/19 Adult obesity: 2018 Childhood obesity: 2018/19 Adult physical activity: 12 months to November 2019 Children and young people's physical activity: 2018/19 academic year

The share of the population with overweight in Canada was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029 by in total 1.6 percentage points. After the fifteenth consecutive increasing year, the overweight population share is estimated to reach 74.45 percent and therefore a new peak in 2029. Notably, the share of the population with overweight of was continuously increasing over the past years.Overweight is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of more than 25.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the share of the population with overweight in countries like Mexico and United States.

These data are from the 2013 California Dietary Practices Surveys (CDPS), 2012 California Teen Eating, Exercise and Nutrition Survey (CalTEENS), and 2013 California Children’s Healthy Eating and Exercise Practices Surveys (CalCHEEPS). These surveys have been discontinued. Adults, adolescents, and children (with parental assistance) were asked for their current height and weight, from which, body mass index (BMI) was calculated. For adults, a BMI of 30.0 and above is considered obese. For adolescents and children, obesity is defined as having a BMI at or above the 95th percentile, according to CDC growth charts.

The California Dietary Practices Surveys (CDPS), the California Teen Eating, Exercise and Nutrition Survey (CalTEENS), and the California Children’s Healthy Eating and Exercise Practices Surveys (CalCHEEPS) (now discontinued) were the most extensive dietary and physical activity assessments of adults 18 years and older, adolescents 12 to 17, and children 6 to 11, respectively, in the state of California. CDPS and CalCHEEPS were administered biennially in odd years up through 2013 and CalTEENS was administered biennially in even years through 2014. The surveys were designed to monitor dietary trends, especially fruit and vegetable consumption, among Californias for evaluating their progress toward meeting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Healthy People 2020 Objectives. All three surveys were conducted via telephone. Adult and adolescent data were collected using a list of participating CalFresh households and random digit dial, and child data were collected using only the list of CalFresh households. Older children (9-11) were the primary respondents with some parental assistance. For younger children (6-8), the primary respondent was parents. Data were oversampled for low-income and African American to provide greater sensitivity for analyzing trends among the target population. Wording of the question used for these analyses varied by survey (age group). The questions were worded are as follows: Adult:1) How tall are you without shoes?2) How much do you weigh?Adolescent:1) About how much do you weigh without shoes?2) About how tall are you without shoes? Child:1) How tall is [child's name] now without shoes on?2) How much does [child's name] weigh now without shoes on?

The spreadsheet contains regional level obesity trend data from the the HSE, BMI data from Understanding Society, and adjusted prevalence of underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obesity by local authority from the Active People Survey.

Understanding Society data shows the percentage of the population aged 10 and over by their Body Mass Index Classification, covering underweight, normal weight, overweight, and three classes of obesity.

Questions on self-reported height and weight were added to the Sport England Active People Survey (APS) in January 2012 to provide data for monitoring excess weight (overweight including obesity, BMI ≥25kg/m2) in adults (age 16 and over) at local authority level for the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF).

Health Survey for England (HSE) results at a national level are available on the NHS Information Centre website.

Other NHS indicators on obesity are available for Strategic Health Authorities (SHA).

Relevant links: http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=2000053

http://www.noo.org.uk/visualisation/adult_obesity

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of asthma (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to asthma (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with asthma was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with asthma was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with asthma, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have asthma, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from asthma, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with asthma within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of asthma, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of asthma.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

The share of the population with overweight in the United States was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029 by in total 1.6 percentage points. After the fifteenth consecutive increasing year, the overweight population share is estimated to reach 77.43 percent and therefore a new peak in 2029. Notably, the share of the population with overweight of was continuously increasing over the past years.Overweight is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of more than 25.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the share of the population with overweight in countries like Canada and Mexico.

This set of files contains public data used to validate the grocery data. All references to the original sources are provided below.CHILD OBESITYPeriodically, the English National Health Service (NHS) publishes statistics about various aspects of the health and habits of people living in England, including obesity. The NHS National Child Measurement (NCMP) measures the height and weight of children in Reception class (aged 4 to 5) and year 6 (aged 10 to 11), to assess overweight and obesity levels in children within primary schools. The program is carried out every year in England and statistics are produced at the level of Local Authority (that corresponds to Boroughs in London). We report the data for the school year 2015-2016 (file: child_obesity_london_borough_2015-2016.csv). For the school year 2013-2014, statistics in London are also available at ward-level (file: child_obesity_london_ward_2013-2014.csv)The files are comma-separated and contain the following fields: area_id: the id of the boroughnumber_reception_measured: number of children in reception year measurednumber_y6_measured: number of children in reception year measuredprevalence_overweight_reception: the prevalence (percentage) of overweight children in reception year prevalence_overweight_y6: the prevalence (percentage) of overweight children in year 6prevalence_obese_reception: the prevalence (percentage) of obese children in reception yearprevalence_obese_y6: the prevalence (percentage) of obese children in year 6ADULT OBESITYThe Active People Survey (APS) was a survey used to measure the number of adults taking part in sport across England and included two questions about the height and weight of participants. We report the results of the APS for the year 2012. Prevalence of underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese people at borough level are provided in the file london_obesity_borough_2012.csv.The file is comma-separated and contains the following fields: area_id: the id of the boroughnumber_measured: number of people who participated in the surveyprevalence_healthy_weight: the prevalence (percentage) of healthy-weight peopleprevalence_overweight: the prevalence (percentage) of overweight peopleprevalence_obese: the prevalence (percentage) of obese peopleBARIATRIC HOSPITALIZATIONThe NHS records and publishes an annual compendium report about the number of hospital admissions attributable to obesity or bariatric surgery (i.e., weight loss surgery used as a treatment for people who are very obese), and the number of prescription items provided in primary care for the treatment of obesity. The NHS provides both raw counts at the Local Authority level and numbers normalized by population living in those areas. In the file obesity_hospitalization_borough_2016.csv, we report the statistics for the year 2015 (measurements made between Jan 2015 and March 2016).The file is comma-separated and contains the following fields:area_id: the id of the boroughtotal_hospitalizations: total number of obesity-related hospitalizationstotal_bariatric: total number of hospitalizations for bariatric surgeryprevalence_hospitalizations: prevalence (percentage) of obesity-related hospitalizations prevalence_bariatric: prevalence (percentage) of bariatric surgery hospitalizations DIABETESThrough the Quality and Outcomes Framework, NHS Digital publishes annually the number of people aged 17+ on a register for diabetes at each GP practice in England. NHS also publishes the number of people living in a census area who are registered to any of the GP in England. Based on these two sources, an estimate is produced about the prevalence of diabetes in each area. The data (file diabetes_estimates_osward_2016.csv) was collected in 2016 at LSOA-level and published at ward-level.The file is comma-separated and contains the following fields:area_id: the id of the wardgp_patients: total number of GP patients gp_patients_diabetes: total number of GP patients with a diabetes diagnosisestimated_diabetes_prevalence: prevalence (percentage) of diabetesAREA MAPPINGMapping of Greater London postcodes into larger geographical aggregations. The file is comma-separated and contains the following fields:pcd: postcodelat: latitudelong: longitudeoa11: output arealsoa11: lower super output areamsoa11: medium super output areaosward: wardoslaua: borough

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of hypertension (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to hypertension (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with hypertension was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with hypertension was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with hypertension , within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have hypertension B) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have hypertension An average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have hypertension , compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from hypertension, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with hypertension within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of hypertension, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of hypertension .TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

India IN: Prevalence of Overweight: Weight for Height: % of Children Under 5, Modeled Estimate data was reported at 2.800 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.700 % for 2021. India IN: Prevalence of Overweight: Weight for Height: % of Children Under 5, Modeled Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 2.300 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2022, with 23 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.800 % in 2022 and a record low of 2.200 % in 2015. India IN: Prevalence of Overweight: Weight for Height: % of Children Under 5, Modeled Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s India – Table IN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Health Statistics. Prevalence of overweight children is the percentage of children under age 5 whose weight for height is more than two standard deviations above the median for the international reference population of the corresponding age as established by the WHO's 2006 Child Growth Standards.;UNICEF, WHO, World Bank: Joint child Malnutrition Estimates (JME).;Weighted average;Once considered only a high-income economy problem, overweight children have become a growing concern in developing countries. Research shows an association between childhood obesity and a high prevalence of diabetes, respiratory disease, high blood pressure, and psychosocial and orthopedic disorders (de Onis and Blössner 2003). Childhood obesity is associated with a higher chance of obesity, premature death, and disability in adulthood. In addition to increased future risks, obese children experience breathing difficulties and increased risk of fractures, hypertension, early markers of cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, and psychological effects. Children in low- and middle-income countries are more vulnerable to inadequate nutrition before birth and in infancy and early childhood. Many of these children are exposed to high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, calorie-dense, micronutrient-poor foods, which tend be lower in cost than more nutritious foods. These dietary patterns, in conjunction with low levels of physical activity, result in sharp increases in childhood obesity, while under-nutrition continues. Estimates are modeled estimates produced by the JME. Primary data sources of the anthropometric measurements are national surveys. These surveys are administered sporadically, resulting in sparse data for many countries. Furthermore, the trend of the indicators over time is usually not a straight line and varies by country. Tracking the current level and progress of indicators helps determine if countries are on track to meet certain thresholds, such as those indicated in the SDGs. Thus the JME developed statistical models and produced the modeled estimates.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with coronary heart disease was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with coronary heart disease was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with coronary heart disease, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have coronary heart diseaseB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have coronary heart diseaseAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have coronary heart disease, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from coronary heart disease, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with coronary heart disease within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of coronary heart disease, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of coronary heart disease.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

This table presents a wide variety of historical data in the field of health, lifestyle and health care. Figures on births and mortality, causes of death and the occurrence of certain infectious diseases are available from 1900, other series from later dates. In addition to self-perceived health, the table contains figures on infectious diseases, hospitalisations per diagnosis, life expectancy, lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity, and causes of death. The table also gives information on several aspects of health care, such as the number of practising professionals, the number of available hospital beds, nursing day averages and the expenditures on care. Many subjects are also covered in more detail by data in other tables, although sometimes with a shorter history. Data on notifiable infectious diseases and HIV/AIDS are not included in other tables.

Data available from: 1900

Status of the figures:

2024: The available figures are definite. 2023: Most available figures are definite. Figures are provisional for: - occurrence of infectious diseases; - expenditures on health and welfare; - perinatal and infant mortality. 2022: Most available figures are definite. Figures are provisional for: - occurrence of infectious diseases; - diagnoses at hospital admissions; - number of hospital discharges and length of stay; - number of hospital beds; - health professions; - expenditures on health and welfare. 2021: Most available figures are definite. Figures are provisional for: - occurrence of infectious diseases; - expenditures on health and welfare. 2020 and earlier: Most available figures are definite. Due to 'dynamic' registrations, figures for notifiable infectious diseases, HIV, AIDS remain provisional.

Changes as of 18 december 2024: - Due to a revision of the statistics Health and welfare expenditure 2021, figures for expenditure on health and welfare have been replaced from 2021 onwards. - Revised figures on the volume index of healthcare costs are not yet available, these figures have been deleted from 2021 onwards.

The most recent available figures have been added for: - live born children, deaths; - occurrence of infectious diseases; - number of hospital beds; - expenditures on health and welfare; - perinatal and infant mortality; - healthy life expectancy; - causes of death.

When will new figures be published? July 2025.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of chronic kidney disease in adults (aged 18+). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to chronic kidney disease in adults (aged 18+).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (aged 18+) with chronic kidney disease was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with chronic kidney disease was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with chronic kidney disease, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have chronic kidney diseaseB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have chronic kidney diseaseAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have chronic kidney disease, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from chronic kidney disease, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with chronic kidney disease within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of chronic kidney disease, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of chronic kidney disease.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

SUMMARYTo be viewed in combination with the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.This dataset shows where there was no data* relating to one of more of the following factors:Obesity/inactivity-related illnesses (recorded at the GP practice catchment area level*)Adult obesity (recorded at the GP practice catchment area level*)Inactivity in children (recorded at the district level)Excess weight in children (recorded at the Middle Layer Super Output Area level)* GPs do not have catchments that are mutually exclusive from each other: they overlap, with some geographic areas being covered by 30+ practices.GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. This dataset identifies areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year (this could be because there are rural areas that aren’t officially covered by any GP practices), or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution.Results of the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ analysis in these areas should be interpreted with caution, particularly if the levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses appear to be significantly lower than in their immediate surrounding areas.Really small areas with ‘missing’ data were deleted, where it was deemed that missing data will not have impacted the overall analysis (i.e. where GP data was missing from really small countryside areas where no people live).See also Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers dataDATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:- Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.- National Child Measurement Programme: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. - Active Lives Survey 2019: Sport and Physical Activity Levels amongst children and young people in school years 1-11 (aged 5-16). © Sport England 2020.- Active Lives Survey 2019: Sport and Physical Activity Levels amongst adults aged 16+. © Sport England 2020.- GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.- Administrative boundaries: Boundary-LineTM: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.- MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Sport England 2020; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

The prevalence of overweight and obese people worldwide has dramatically increased in the last decades and is yet to peak. At the same time and partly due to obesity and associated assisted reproduction, twinning rates showed a clear rise in the last years. Adverse fetomaternal outcomes are known to occur in singleton and twin pregnancies in overweight and obese women. However, the impact of the obesity levels as defined by the World Health Organization on the outcomes of twin pregnancies has not been thoroughly studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how maternal overweight, and the level of obesity affect fetomaternal outcomes in twin pregnancies, hypothesizing a higher likelihood for adverse outcomes with overweight and each obesity level. This is a retrospective cohort study with 2,349 twin pregnancies that delivered at the Buergerhospital Frankfurt, Germany between 2005 and 2020. The mothers were divided into exposure groups depending on their pre-gestational body mass index; these were normal weight (reference group), overweight and obesity levels I, II, and III. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the influence of overweight and obesity on gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, intrauterine fetal death, and a five-minutes Apgar score below seven. The adjusted odds ratio for gestational diabetes compared to normal weight mothers were 1.47, 2.79, 4.05, and 6.40 for overweight and obesity levels I, II and III respectively (p = 0.015 for overweight and p < 0.001 for each obesity level). Maternal BMI had a significant association with the risk of preeclampsia (OR 1.04, p = 0.028). Overweight and obesity did not affect the odds of postpartum hemorrhage, fetal demise, or a low Apgar score. While maternal overweight and obesity did not influence the fetal outcomes in twin pregnancies, they significantly increased the risk of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia, and that risk is incremental with increasing level of obesity.