Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
EDITORIAL
published: 11 December 2017
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02149
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1December 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 2149
Edited by:
Alix Timko,
University of Pennsylvania,
United States
Reviewed by:
Paula M. Brochu,
Nova Southeastern University,
United States
*Correspondence:
Stuart W. Flint
s.w.flint@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Eating Behavior,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 22 September 2017
Accepted: 27 November 2017
Published: 11 December 2017
Citation:
Flint SW, Oliver EJ and Copeland RJ
(2017) Editorial: Obesity Stigma in
Healthcare: Impacts on Policy,
Practice, and Patients.
Front. Psychol. 8:2149.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02149
Editorial: Obesity Stigma in
Healthcare: Impacts on Policy,
Practice, and Patients
Stuart W. Flint 1
*, Emily J. Oliver 2and Robert J. Copeland 3
1Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences,
Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom, 3Centre of Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield,
United Kingdom
Keywords: weight stigma, healthcare, higher weight, anti-fat attitudes, weight bias
Editorial on the Research Topic
Obesity Stigma in Healthcare: Impacts on Policy, Practice, and Patients
INTRODUCTION AND EDITION PURPOSE
Obesity prevalence is a global health concern. Alongside increasing awareness of the condition
are concomiteted increases in reported weight stigma and discrimination toward people with
obesity. Counter-intuitively, research has identified weight stigma in settings that are critical for
the engagement and treatment of people with obesity, such as exercise (Robertson and Vohora,
2008; Flint and Reale, 2016), healthcare facilities (Brown and Flint, 2013), schools (Puhl and
Luedicke, 2012), and workplaces (Roehling, 1999; Flint et al., 2016). The prevalence and robustness
to interventions to reduce anti-fat attitudes is concerning (Flint et al., 2013) given their association
with anti-fat behavior (O’Brien et al., 2008). For instance, healthcare professionals and students in
training report stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs toward higher-weight people, and in some cases,
withhold appropriate advice or treatment (e.g., Kristeller and Hoerr, 1997; Hebl and Xu, 2001).
In addition, healthcare providers use stigmatizing terminology in consultations and other patient-
practitioner meetings, with adverse effects (e.g., avoidance of healthcare settings, and compromised
psychosocial wellbeing: depressed mood, anxiety, social isolation, and lower self-esteem) (e.g.,
Vartanian and Novak, 2011).
Despite accumulating evidence demonstrating prevalent weight stigma in healthcare settings,
current knowledge of the impact of weight stigma within healthcare remains underdeveloped.
In a dynamic context whereby the legal and social standing of higher weight people is the
subject of contemporary debate, an evidence-based review of understanding and practice is
timely. Existing research has provided useful and critical insight into the prevalence, breadth
and nature of anti-fat biases and weight stigma within healthcare professionals and settings.
Increasingly, we are aware of how these biases might influence treatment and the patient
experience. Conceptualizing existing research as predominantly addressing these ’first generation’
questions, in editing the current Research Topic, we sought to present emerging work that explores
second and third generation questions. These concern, for example, differential predictors of
patients’ reactivity to weight stigma, new interventions for modification of weight self-stigma, and
theoretically-grounded critical reflections on how stigma is experienced and socially constructed.
Flint et al. Obesity Stigma in Healthcare
We include work from all stages of the healthcare pathway,
exploring: whether and how theory and evidence concerning
weight stigma are reflected in policy and guidance, how stigma
is influencing professionals and their practice, and how patients
are affected.
SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTING ARTICLES
This Research Topic opens with Lee and Pause’s auto-
ethnographic account of fat stigma and discrimination that
people experience from the medical profession and other sectors
of the community. Novel contributions are made through the
authors’ consideration of Bacon and Aphramor’s “Health and
Every Size” paradigm as a path to health for individuals who
are fat, raising critical questions concerning the nature of health
as a state, behavior, commodity, or social contract. Importantly,
this article presents research into the barriers to accessing and
adoption of health behaviors from the perspective of higher
weight researchers. In doing so, the authors consider whether
the “Health at every Size” paradigm is an appropriate health
perspective that higher weight people can utilize. Drawing from
feminist theory, the authors challenge a perceived failure to
provide evidenced-based healthcare to higher weight people.
The second paper (Rudolph and Hilbert) presents an
experimental examination of the impact of obesity-related health
messages on implicit and explicit weight bias. Rudolph and
Hilbert’s study examined the use of health messages promoting
healthy eating and physical activity on subsequent implicit and
explicit weight bias comparing the findings against a control arm
that contained neutral information. The authors reported a small
difference in reduced implicit weight bias in the experimental
condition (health messages) but not in the control condition
(neutral messages). Despite this positive finding, there was no
difference in explicit weight bias. Given the commonality of
health messages, further research that examines the implications
on weight bias appears warranted.
The third paper (Meadows et al.) explored the effects of both
the amount of contact with higher weight people before and
during medical school and of training to induce empathy toward
patients on anti-fat attitudes. An online survey was completed
by students in their first year and again in their fourth year of
medical school. After 4 years of medical school, greater contact
with higher weight patients improved attitudes toward higher
weight patients, however, this effect was not as strong for attitudes
toward higher weight people. Differing effects were reported
for the impact of training to include empathy toward patients,
where greater effect was observed for participants who were more
egalitarian and empathetic at baseline. This study along with
other interventions (e.g., Flint et al., 2013) that have shown only
a small effect in reducing weight stigma, reinforce the need for
interventions to improve attitudes toward higher weight people.
The fourth study (Raves et al.) used a mixed-methods
design (survey responses, ethnographic data and multi-year
participant-observations within a clinical setting) to examine
the relationship between weight stigma and post-surgical dietary
response; whether weight loss reduces weight stigma; and patient
and provider perspectives on stigma and healthcare adherence.
Raves et al. reported that weight stigma internalization and
experiences of weight stigma predicted worse dietary adherence;
patients were ambivalent of the stigma to adherence relationship,
whereas healthcare professionals viewed this as poor patient
compliance. This study provides evidence of weight stigma in
healthcare, and that internalization and experiences of weight
stigma reduces healthcare adherence, highlighting the need for
intervention to improve adherence and potentially outcomes.
The final two articles discuss the use of terminologies and
labels used in policy, research, healthcare and other contexts.
First, Lozano-Sufrategui et al. discuss the terminology used
by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in
England within the national guidance for improving health
and social care in England given the status of NICE in
shaping the discourse relating to obesity. Second, Meadows
and Daníelsdóttir suggest that more neutral terms such
as “weight” and “higher weight” be used as more neutral
and acceptable terms that carry less culturally constructed
values.
EMERGENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Collectively, the work in this special issue underpins a
number of recommendations. First, we recommend that
clinicians, researchers, health practitioners, exercise specialists
and policy makers carefully avoid labeling higher weight
patients with culturally stigmatizing terminology. While there
may be diagnostic settings where more specific terminology
is required, we support calls in this Research Topic for
healthcare professionals to understand what terms are acceptable
for their patients. For instance, in some cases the use of
“higher weight” or “fat” might be acceptable for patients. It
is therefore imperative that healthcare professionals establish
the most acceptable terms to use with their patients to
avoid potential disengagement and associated implications
for the patient-practitioner relationship. Second, we call for
researchers to develop effective and innovative interventions to
sustainably reduce weight stigmatizing attitudes and practices.
Work thus far is dominated by acute experimental studies;
more translational research into practice-focused interventions
is required. Third, and finally, that research and policy makers
consider resources for engaging and supporting higher weight
people and mandatory training of practitioners through a stigma-
awareness raising lens, given the potential impact of these on the
patient healthcare outcomes.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SF, EO, and RC drafted, revised and finalized the content of
the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final
manuscript.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2December 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 2149
Flint et al. Obesity Stigma in Healthcare
REFERENCES
Brown, I., and Flint, S. W. (2013). Weight bias and the training of health
professionals to better manage obesity: what do we know and what should we
do? Curr. Obes. Rep. 2, 333–340. doi: 10.1007/s13679-013-0070-y
Flint, S. W., Hudson, J., and Lavallee, D. (2013). Counterconditioning as an
intervention to modify anti-fat attitudes. Health Psychol. Res. 1, 122–125.
doi: 10.4081/hpr.2013.738
Flint, S. W., ˇ
Cadek, M., Codreanu, S. C., Ivi´
c, V., Zomer, C., and Gomoiu, A. (2016).
Obesity discrimination in employment recruitment: ‘You’re not Hired!.’ Front.
Psychol. 7:647. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00647
Flint, S. W., and Reale, S. (2016). Weight stigma in frequent exercisers:
overt, demeaning and condescending. J. Health Psychol. 1:1359105316656232.
doi: 10.1177/1359105316656232
Hebl, M. R., and Xu, J. (2001). Weighing the care: physicians’ reactions to
the size of a patient. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 25, 1246–1252.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801681
Kristeller, J. L., and Hoerr, R. A. (1997). Physician attitudes toward managing
obesity: differences among six specialty groups. Prev. Med. 26, 542–549.
doi: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0171
O’Brien, K. S., Latner, J. D., Halberstadt, J., Hunter, J. A., Anderson, J., and Caputi,
P. (2008). Do antifat attitudes predict antifat behaviors?. Obesity 16(Suppl. 2),
S87–S92. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.456
Puhl, R. M., and Luedicke, J. (2012). Weight-based victimization among
adolescents in the school setting: emotional reactions and coping behaviors. J.
Youth Adolesc. 41, 27–40. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9713-z
Robertson, N., and Vohora, R. (2008). Fitness vs. fatness: Implicit bias towards
obesity among fitness professionals and regular exercisers. Psychol. Sport Exerc.
9, 547–557. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.06.002
Roehling, M. V. (1999). Weight-based discrimination in employment:
psychological and legal aspects. Pers. Psychol. 52, 969–1016.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00186.x
Vartanian, L. R., and Novak, S. A. (2011). Internalized societal attitudes moderate
the impact of weight stigma on avoidance of exercise. Obesity 19, 757–762.
doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.234
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2017 Flint, Oliver and Copeland. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3December 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 2149
Content uploaded by Stuart W Flint
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stuart W Flint on Dec 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.