Data Source
Using longitudinal data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS), this study examines how individual BMI trajectories have changed over two decades (from 1993 to 2014). There are five waves of IFLS until 2014, and data are available for public use at https://www.rand.org/labor/FLS/IFLS.html. During two decades of observations, there were new panel respondents added in each wave. This present study includes both original and new panel respondents into analysis to increase sample power. Analysis in this study is conducted without longitudinal sample weighting because IFLS datasets only generated individual longitudinal weighting for original respondents who had been followed since the first wave.
This study focuses on examining the changes in BMI (Body Mass Index) among adults who born prior 1974 and at age 20 and over in 1993. IFLS has followed and collected information of households and individual respondents over time, including anthropometric measures (height and weight) from all individual respondents that are used to measure BMI. As a household survey, IFLS followed individual BMI from a wide range of cohorts over 20 years that allows examination of individual weight change as function of age, as well as the cohort shift in mean BMI over time.
Pregnant women are excluded from observation to reduce bias on analyzing individual BMI trajectory. This present study also excludes observations with extreme outliers of height (< 100cm or > 200cm) and weight (< 25 kg or > 200kg). Overall, there are less than 0.6% of observations excluded due to extreme height and weight (see Supplemental Table 1). To examine the change in BMI over time, this study only includes panel respondents with a minimum of three measures of BMI to permit more flexible BMI trajectory modelling. Supplemental Table 2 provides participation rates of each birth cohort under study.
Outcome: Body Mass Index (BMI)
The outcome interest of this study is BMI, which is a continuous time-varying variable. BMI is a general indicator to measure and classify individual adults considered as underweight, normal, overweight or obese. BMI is calculated from individual weight in kilograms divided by the square of the person height in meters (kg/m2) [43]. The risk of chronic diseases among Asian populations is increased at lower BMI cut points as compared to international BMI cut points (≥ 25-29.9kg/m2 for overweight and ≥ 30kg/m2 for obese) [44]. Thus, the cut points for Asia-Pacific population are 23–27.4 kg/m2 for overweight and ≥ 27.5 kg/m2 for obese [43, 44].
Covariates
To explain variation in BMI trajectories across population groups, this study will examine whether BMI trajectory differs by age, sex, cohort, period and educational attainment over time.
Educational Attainment
This study investigates the effect of education attainment by age 20 in shaping BMI changes across the population. Data exploration found that only 1.2% of panel respondents experienced changes on educational status over two decades of IFLS observation. Hence, education is treated as a time invariant variable with the assumption the level of educational attainment of panel respondents is unchanged after age 20. Level of education attainment is treated as a categorical variable with 1 = no education, 2 = primary school, 3 = secondary school (junior and senior schools), and 4 = tertiary.
Control variables: Age, Sex, Period and Birth Cohorts
In this analysis, individual’s age in each wave represents time and is treated as a continuous variable. Age is centered at 20 in the models to facilitate meaningful interpretation of the intercept. By observing how BMI changes as a function of age, this study can reveal the true effect of age on BMI trajectories. Sex is measured as a dummy variable (0 = men and 1 = women). Based on previous evidence, we hypothesize that BMI trajectories may differ substantially by sex. To account for the effect of historical period when the surveys were conducted, a five-category period variable (1 = 1993, 2 = 1997, 3 = 2000, 4 = 2007, and 5 = 2014) is used. A continuous cohort variable is created to estimate the effect of birth cohort. The cohort variable is also centered at youngest cohort of panel respondents (respondents born in 1973).
Statistical Analysis
This study fits an individual growth model, and examines BMI trajectories using a mixed-effects approach to Growth Curve Modelling (GCM) that permits estimation of inter-individual variability by taking account of intra-individual trajectories of change over time [45]. This model can fit unbalanced data, meaning that individual BMI trajectories can contain a unique number of BMI measures which were collected at unique times [31]. The mixed-effect approach also can fit complex models containing two or three-level random-effects without difficulty [46].
To describe the growth curve model, the three level model is defined as follows:


This study comprises two steps of analyses. First, we model trajectories of BMI and examine whether there is a significant variation within and between persons in BMI changes over the life-course. We further investigate whether the association between age and BMI follows a quadratic or curvilinear trend over age. The analysis will also test whether BMI trajectory differs by sex over the life-course. The mixed model consists of two-level random effects models that count for intra- and inter-individual differences in BMI trajectory.
In the second step of analysis, we develop separate models for men and women to investigate the effect of age, period, and cohort on changes in population BMI. These analyses additionally investigate how educational gradients in BMI trajectory have changed over time after controlling for period and cohort effects. Due to significant differences in access to education and in BMI trajectories between men and women, these analyses are conducted separately by gender.
This paper adopts the hierarchical age-period-cohort model (HAPC) by A Bell and K Jones [33] to model age-period-cohort effects on BMI trajectories. Using HAPC analysis, the trend in BMI of the Indonesian population is evaluated according to three different dimensions of time: age (life course), period (historical time when the survey occurred), and birth cohort (historical effect of the year in which individuals were born).
The data structure of the ILFS comprises a wide range of birth cohorts who were observed through 5 waves from 1993 to 2014. Based on the data structure, the effects of APC are investigated simultaneously by the inclusion of age, period, and cohort as covariates at fixed model. The mixed model with APC in this analysis is a three-level random-effects model taking account intra-and inter-individual differences in BMI changes at second level, as well as intra-and inter-cohort differences at the third level. The model also includes linear age as an individual random effect to allow the effect of age on BMI trajectory to vary across individuals.
The main effect of education is examined by including education covariates in the fixed model. Further, interactions between education and age and/or cohort are included to test differences in the effect of education over the life-course and across cohort after controlling for historical period. Statistical analysis was carried out using Stata, version 14.2.
Findings
Descriptive Analysis
In total there are 14,810 panel respondents with three or more BMI measures included in this analysis. The distribution of panel respondents in each wave is illustrated by Table 1. Table 1 shows the unweighted distribution of observations in this study for each wave based on respondent characteristics (sex, age group, education attainment and BMI category). The table shows a gradual increase of proportion overweight/obese over time from 1993 to 2014. The mean BMI also increased from 21.4 kg/m2 in 1993 to 23.85 kg/m2 in 2014. Overweight and obesity were more common in women than men.
Table 1
Descriptive proportion of respondents by characteristics from each wave
Characteristics | Waves (N = 14,810) |
I | II | III | IV | V |
Sex | | | | | |
Female | 56.27 | 56.26 | 53.75 | 54.5 | 54.92 |
Male | 43.73 | 43.74 | 46.25 | 45.5 | 45.08 |
Age group | | | | | |
20–29 | 18.52 | 16.2 | 9.04 | 0.05 | 0 |
30–39 | 30.28 | 30.64 | 30.64 | 21.28 | 1.04 |
40–49 | 20.89 | 22.31 | 25.48 | 32.31 | 36.40 |
50–59 | 17.61 | 16.41 | 16.41 | 22.33 | 31.86 |
≥ 60 | 12.7 | 14.44 | 18.43 | 24.02 | 30.71 |
Cohort | | | | | |
1964–1973 | 18.52 | 27.71 | 30.77 | 34.43 | 39.16 |
1954–1963 | 30.28 | 28.43 | 27.77 | 29.42 | 31.52 |
1944–1953 | 20.89 | 18.21 | 17.45 | 17.36 | 17.17 |
1934–1943 | 17.61 | 14.93 | 14.02 | 12.36 | 9.22 |
≤ 1933 | 12.7 | 10.73 | 9.98 | 6.43 | 2.91 |
Highest education attainment | | | | | |
Never/Not completed primary education | 21.95 | 19.83 | 18.64 | 16.97 | 14.03 |
Primary | 51.25 | 49.07 | 48.09 | 48.32 | 49.71 |
Secondary | 23.29 | 26.70 | 28.46 | 29.84 | 31.12 |
Tertiary | 3.51 | 4.40 | 4.81 | 4.88 | 5.14 |
Asian BMI classification | | | | | |
Underweight | 17.16 | 15.90 | 16.40 | 13.27 | 11.18 |
Normal | 55.96 | 52.65 | 49.03 | 42.13 | 36.08 |
Overweight | 20.96 | 23.57 | 25.40 | 29.74 | 33.45 |
Obese | 5.91 | 7.88 | 9.17 | 14.86 | 19.29 |
Table 2
Distribution panel respondents based on education attainment by sex and cohort (N = 14,810)
| Never/Not completed primary | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Total |
Sex *** | | | | | |
Female | 24.5 | 47.45 | 24.52 | 3.52 | 100 |
Male | 11.06 | 48.78 | 33.69 | 6.48 | 100 |
Cohort − 10 years interval *** | | | | | |
1964–1973 | 5.52 | 41.1 | 46.11 | 7.27 | 100 |
1954–1963 | 12.05 | 56.45 | 26.48 | 5.03 | 100 |
1944–1953 | 17.73 | 53.88 | 24.08 | 4.31 | 100 |
1934–1943 | 36.7 | 45.4 | 15.28 | 2.62 | 100 |
<=1933 | 53.5 | 40.13 | 5.53 | 0.84 | 100 |
Notes: *** p-value < 0.001 |
Table 2 provides cross-tabulations of the distribution of panel respondents by educational attainment based respondent’s sex and birth cohort groups. The distribution of educational attainment varies substantially by sex and over birth cohorts. Women have lower educational attainment compared to men, but the gap shrinks over successive generations as education became more accessible over time. This changing access to education by gender across successive cohorts needs to be accounted for when exploring the association between educational attainment and BMI trajectories.
BMI Trajectories of Men and Women
Table 3 shows summary model investigating differences in the BMI trajectories over age, for men and women. Age has significant effects on BMI trajectories, and follows a quadratic function. In early adulthood, BMI increased by 0.16 points with each year of age, but the rate of change in BMI declined by -0.002 points with increasing age leading to a declining trajectory of BMI by late adulthood. This declining of BMI at late adulthood demonstrates the effect of biological aging processes including sarcopenia [47].
BMI trajectories are significantly different between women and men over age. The findings in Table 3 suggest that there are gender differences in the rate of change by age and in age-related declines BMI in later life. At age 20, mean BMI is 0.12 points higher for women as compared to men (p < 0.001). Weight gain over age was more rapid for women, with BMI growing by 0.07 points per year more for women as compared to men. However, women also saw more rapid age-related declines with at higher ages, (as shown by the significant interaction between the sex and age2 terms).
Predicted mean BMI over age adjusted for other covariates at means for women and men is illustrated on Fig. 1. The figure illustrates that women’s BMI increases faster than men at middle age, and women overall are more likely to be overweight after age 40 based on Asia-Pacific BMI cut-off. Although men also saw increases in BMI over age, their average trajectory remains within the normal BMI spectrum.
Random effects from the above model show that individuals vary substantially in both their initial BMI (with variance = 9.28) and in the rate of increase in BMI over time (with variance = 0.01). The larger magnitude of variance on the BMI intercept as compared to the slope suggests that individuals’ initial BMI plays a major role in determining BMI trajectory over age between individuals.
Table 3
Model BMI trajectories by sex over life course
| Model BMI trajectory by sex with 95% CI |
# of obs | 60,531 |
# of groups | 14,810 |
Fixed effect | | |
Mean BMI (intercept) | 19.218*** | [19.070-19.365] |
Rate of change by age - centering age at 20 | 0.162 *** | [0.153–0.172] |
Changing in rate by age | -0.002*** | [-0.002-(-0.002)] |
Sex-(ref group Male) | 0.121 | [-.074-0.315] |
Interaction sex-age | 0.067*** | [0.054–0.079] |
Interaction sex - age square | -0.001*** | [-0.001-(-0.0003)] |
Random effect | | |
Level I - within person | | |
variance residual | 2.750 | [2.706–2.794] |
Levell II - between person | | |
variance initial BMI (intercept) | 9.275 | [8.823–9.751] |
variance rate of change (slope) | 0.013 | [0.013–0.014] |
cov(intercept & slope) | -0.073 | [-0.087-(-0.059)] |
p-value random effect | | |
Goodness of fit | | |
Log likelihood | -143188.790 | |
AIC | 286397.600 | |
BIC | 286487.700 | |
Notes: *** p-value significant < 0.001 |
Given the potential gender differences in the social, biological, and life-course drivers of BMI trajectories (including differences in access to education between men and women), this study estimates separate models for men and women. Separate models can reduce the complexity of analysis on testing the effect of education attainment over the life course and across cohorts.
Age-Period-Cohort Effects on BMI Trajectories for Women and Men
Table 4 shows separate models for women’s and men’s BMI trajectories using Hierarchal Age-Period-Cohort growth curve modeling. The results suggest that age, period, and cohort independently affect the change of population mean BMI. The interaction between age, period and cohort is not significant, suggesting that there is no substantial correlation between APC effects.
Similar with first analysis, the results in Table 4 find significant linear and quadratic effects of age on BMI changes for women and men, meaning individual BMI changes over age following a curvilinear function. Both models find different patterns in the effect of period from 1993 to 2014 to the changes of BMI in women and men. Compared to BMI in 1993, women’s BMI gradually rose over the period from 0.34 point in 1997 to 1.49 in 2014. For men, BMI was significantly higher only in 2007 and 2014, with increments 0.51 and 0.82 points respectively. The significant effects of period suggest that changes in social and environmental context (or historical periods) from 1993 to 2014 contributed to the rise of population BMI in Indonesia. Centering birth cohort at younger cohort (born in 1973), both models show significant effects of birth cohort on individual BMI, meaning that more recently-born cohorts are heavier than previous cohorts. The effect of cohort prevails even after accounting for intra- and inter-birth cohort differences in the intercept of BMI as shown in the level three random effect. Predicted adjusted mean BMI when controlling the effect of period and cohort are illustrated in Fig. 2 (panel a and b).
Table 4
Summary table model for male and female
| Female model with 95% CI | Male model with 95% CI |
# of observations | 33,334 | 27,197 |
# of panel respondents | 8,003 | 6,816 |
# cohort group | 70 | 72 |
Fixed effect | | | | |
Mean BMI (intercept) | 19.95*** | [19.49–20.41] | ***19.40 | [18.94–19.85] |
Rate of change by age | 0.21*** | [0.19–0.23] | ***0.17 | [0.15–0.18] |
Changing in rate - aging effect | -0.003*** | [-0.003-(-0.003)] | ***-0.002 | [-0.003-(-0.002)] |
Cohort | 0.07*** | [0.05–0.10] | ***0.06 | [0.04–0.08] |
Period of survey –ref 1993 | | | | |
1997 | 0.34*** | [0.26–0.43] | 0.03 | [-0.04-0.11] |
2000 | 0.38*** | [0.26–0.50] | 0.02 | [-0.09-0.13] |
2007 | 0.98*** | [0.77–1.19] | ***0.51 | [0.32–0.71] |
2014 | 1.49*** | [1.19–1.78] | ***0.82 | [0.54–1.10] |
Education (ref. None education) | | | | |
Primary | 0.70*** | [0.25–1.15] | 0.30 | [-0.18-0.78] |
Secondary | 0.21 | [-0.27-0.70] | 0.83*** | [0.35–1.31] |
Tertiary | -0.61 | [-1.42-0.19] | 1.91*** | [1.28–2.53] |
Education#cohort | | | | |
Primary | -0.01 | [-0.03-0.01] | -0.005 | [-0.02-0.01] |
Secondary | -0.06*** | [-0.08-(-0.03)] | -0.04*** | [-0.06-(-0.02)] |
Tertiary | -0.12*** | [-0.18-(-0.06)] | -0.05*** | [-0.08-(-0.02)] |
Education#Age | | | | |
Primary | 0.01 | [-0.005-0.017] | | |
Secondary | 0.04*** | [0.02–0.05] | | |
Tertiary | 0.06*** | [0.04–0.09] | | |
Random effect | | | | |
Level I - within person variance | 3.27 | [3.21–3.35] | 2.07 | [2.02–2.12] |
Level II - between person | | | | |
variance initial BMI (intercept) | 10.99 | [10.29–11.74] | 6.59 | [6.10–7.13] |
variance rate of change (slope) | 0.01 | [0.01–0.01] | 0.01 | [0.01–0.01] |
Cov (intercept & slope) | -0.12 | [-0.14-0.10] | -0.07 | [-0.09-(-0.06)] |
Level III-between cohorts | 0.16 | [0.08–0.34] | 4.09E-12 | [6.6e-17-2.5e-07] |
Goodness of fit | | | | |
Log likelihood | -80852 | | -59833.76 | |
AIC | 161748 | | 119705.5 | |
BIC | 161933.1 | | 119861.5 | |
Notes: *** p-value significant < 0.001 |
For both women and men, the random effects show that considerable individual variability in intercept and slope remains after the inclusion of the growth model (fixed effects). The large magnitude of variance around the intercept terms suggests that individual differences in initial BMI play a major role in determining BMI growth over time. The random model indicates that most of the variance in mean BMI (intercept) comes from the between individual level (10.99) rather than birth cohort level (0.16). These results suggest fairly significant variation between birth cohorts in mean BMI.
Educational Gradient of BMI Trajectories across Cohorts for Women and Men
Table 3 illustrates the effect of education on women’s and men’s BMI. Education attainment has substantially different impacts on the BMI of women and men. In the women’s model, the main effect of education on BMI diminishes after interacting education with cohort, as well as when age is included into model. This suggests that the effect of education on women’s BMI depends on age (life-course) and individual birth cohort. Among women, inequality in mean BMI across the educational spectrum is wider over life-course. The negative interaction between education and cohort reveals that women from younger birth cohorts with high level of education tend to have lower BMI compared to low educated women. It also shows that women with higher educational attainment have lower BMI compared to previous generations of women with the same education level. The significant negative interaction between education and cohort to BMI suggests that the lower rate of weight gain among younger cohorts is associated with the increased level of educational attainment achieved by individuals in the same birth cohorts.
The model estimating the effect of education for men differs slightly from women’s model, as it lacks an interaction between education and age due to convergence issues. This likely stems from the smaller sample of male panel respondents as compared to women. Thus, the men’s model only tests the main effect of education and whether the effect of education on BMI varies across birth cohorts. Having secondary or tertiary education is associated a higher BMI among men, with increments 0.83 for men with secondary education and 1.91 for tertiary education. The negative effect of higher education on the change in BMI also observed in younger cohorts men, although at a much smaller magnitude compared to women.
Predicted adjusted mean BMI by educational spectrum across cohorts is illustrated in Fig. 3. This figure shows the shifting effect of educational attainment on BMI across cohorts of men and women in Indonesia. Panel a of Fig. 3 shows that inequalities in mean BMI across educational spectrum were wide among older generation in women, but diminish among younger generations. Among older generations, women with lower education have mean BMI around underweight to normal BMI cut-offs (< 23 kg/m2 for Asia-Pacific BMI cut-off). However, among the younger generation, the mean BMI of women with low education attainment are now at in the overweight classification of BMI (23-24.9 kg/m2 for Asia-Pacific BMI). This suggests that the risk of overweight is more dispersed across the educational spectrum among more recently-born cohorts of women. The mean BMI of women with tertiary education shows a downward trend over cohorts, from obese (≥ 25 kg/m2) among older cohorts to overweight in younger cohorts. These trends suggest that, among younger cohorts, tertiary education is acting as a “social vaccine” to growth of BMI and obesity for women.
The educational gradient of mean BMI among men (Panel b of Fig. 3) also narrows over cohort, but the gradient persists in younger birth cohorts. The predicted margin of mean BMI for men across the educational spectrum show that, in contrast to its protective effects among women, tertiary education is associated with weight gain among men in younger cohorts and tend to be overweight. Although the mean BMI of men with secondary education or lower increases over time, the mean BMI of these groups remain in the normal BMI range (≤ 23 kg/m2).