Primary care physicians' attitudes about obesity and its treatment.

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Obesity research (Impact Factor: 4.95). 10/2003; 11(10):1168-77. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2003.161
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study was designed to assess physicians' attitudes toward obese patients and the causes and treatment of obesity.
A questionnaire assessed attitudes in 2 geographically representative national random samples of 5000 primary care physicians. In one sample (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI of 30 to 40 kg/m(2), and in the other (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI > 40.
Six hundred twenty physicians responded. They rated physical inactivity as significantly more important than any other cause of obesity (p < 0.0009). Two other behavioral factors-overeating and a high-fat diet-received the next highest mean ratings. More than 50% of physicians viewed obese patients as awkward, unattractive, ugly, and noncompliant. The treatment of obesity was rated as significantly less effective (p < 0.001) than therapies for 9 of 10 chronic conditions. Most respondents (75%), however, agreed with the consensus recommendations that a 10% reduction in weight is sufficient to improve obesity-related health complications and viewed a 14% weight loss (i.e., 78 +/- 5 kg from an initial weight of 91 kg) as an acceptable treatment outcome. More than one-half (54%) would spend more time working on weight management issues if their time was reimbursed appropriately.
Primary care physicians view obesity as largely a behavioral problem and share our broader society's negative stereotypes about the personal attributes of obese persons. Practitioners are realistic about treatment outcomes but view obesity treatment as less effective than treatment of most other chronic conditions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: USING AN ETHICAL LENS, THIS REVIEW EVALUATES TWO METHODS OF WORKING WITHIN PATIENT CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH: the weight-normative approach (emphasis on weight and weight loss when defining health and well-being) and the weight-inclusive approach (emphasis on viewing health and well-being as multifaceted while directing efforts toward improving health access and reducing weight stigma). Data reveal that the weight-normative approach is not effective for most people because of high rates of weight regain and cycling from weight loss interventions, which are linked to adverse health and well-being. Its predominant focus on weight may also foster stigma in health care and society, and data show that weight stigma is also linked to adverse health and well-being. In contrast, data support a weight-inclusive approach, which is included in models such as Health at Every Size for improving physical (e.g., blood pressure), behavioral (e.g., binge eating), and psychological (e.g., depression) indices, as well as acceptability of public health messages. Therefore, the weight-inclusive approach upholds nonmaleficience and beneficience, whereas the weight-normative approach does not. We offer a theoretical framework that organizes the research included in this review and discuss how it can guide research efforts and help health professionals intervene with their patients and community.
    Journal of obesity. 01/2014; 2014:983495.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Despite a wealth of experimental studies on weight bias, little is known about weight discrimination at the population level. This study examined the prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of perceived weight discrimination in a large population-based sample of older adults.Methods:Data were from 5307 adults in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing; a population-based cohort of men and women aged ≥50y. Weight discrimination was reported for five domains (less respect/courtesy; treated as less clever; poorer treatment in medical settings; poorer service in restaurants/stores; threatened/harassed) at wave 5 (2010/11). Height and weight were measured at wave 4 (2008/09). We used logistic regression to test the odds of weight discrimination in relation to weight status, age, sex, wealth, education, and marital status.Results:Perceived weight discrimination in any domain was reported by 4.6% of participants, ranging from 0.8% in the normal-weight participants through 0.9%, 6.7%, 24.2%, and 35.1% in individuals who were overweight or met criteria for class I, II, and III obesity. Overall, and in each situation, odds of perceived weight discrimination were higher in younger and less wealthy individuals. There was no interaction between weight status and any socio-demographic variable. Relative to normal-weight participants, odds ratios for any perceived weight discrimination were 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40] in those who were overweight, 8.86 [4.65-16.88] in those with class I obesity, 35.06 [18.30-67.16] in class II obese, and 56.43 [27.72-114.87] in class III obese.Conclusion:Our results indicate that rates of perceived weight discrimination are comparatively low in individuals who are overweight or have class I obesity, but for those with class II/III obesity, over 10% had experienced discrimination in each domain, and over 20% had been treated with less respect or courtesy. These findings have implications for public policy and highlight the need for effective interventions to promote equality.International Journal of Obesity accepted article preview online, 20 October 2014. doi:10.1038/ijo.2014.186.
    International journal of obesity (2005) 10/2014; · 5.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obesity is a global world-wide health problem in both developing and developed countries. In Saudi Arabia, this problem becomes an alarming disease both during childhood and adulthood among males and females. Primary health care physicians are identified as the first line of defense and contributor to cost-effective for the management and prevention of the disease; they are expected to normalize the weights in the community.
    International journal of health sciences. 04/2014; 8(2):151-8.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014