Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26311336›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of obesity (2005)2016

Weight-based discrimination: an ubiquitary phenomenon?

C Sikorski, J Spahlholz, M Hartlev, S G Riedel-Heller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of obesity (2005), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Beyond correlates: the social gradient in childhood overweight.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Prevalence and Correlates of Weight Stigma among Postpartum Women in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

C SikorskiLeipzig University Medical Center, IFB AdiposityDiseases, Leipzig, Germany.
J SpahlholzLeipzig University Medical Center, IFB AdiposityDiseases, Leipzig, Germany.
M HartlevFaculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
S G Riedel-HellerInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite strong indications of a high prevalence of weight-related stigmatization in individuals with obesity, limited attention has been given to the role of weight discrimination in examining the stigma obesity. Studies, up to date, rely on a limited basis of data sets and additional studies are needed to confirm the findings of previous studies. In particular, data for Europe are lacking, and are needed in light of a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice that addressed weight-based discrimination.

methodsThe data were derived from a large representative telephone survey in Germany (n=3003). The dependent variable, weight-based discrimination, was assessed with a one-item question. The lifetime prevalence of weight discrimination across different sociodemographic variables was determined. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association of independent and dependent variables. A sub-group analysis was conducted analyzing all participants with a body mass index ⩾25 kg m(-)(2).

resultsThe overall prevalence of weight-based discrimination was 7.3%. Large differences, however, were observed regarding weight status. In normal weight and overweight participants the prevalence was 5.6%, but this number doubled in participants with obesity class I (10.2%), and quadrupled in participants with obesity class II (18.7%) and underweight (19.7%). In participants with obesity class III, every third participant reported accounts of weight-based discrimination (38%). In regression models, after adjustment, the associations of weight status and female gender (odds ratio: 2.59, P<0.001) remained highly significant.

conclusionsDiscrimination seems to be an ubiquitary phenomenon at least for some groups that are at special risk, such as heavier individuals and women. Our findings therefore emphasize the need for research and intervention on weight discrimination among adults with obesity, including anti-discrimination legislation.

Indexed as

Social StigmaAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusFemaleGermanyHealth SurveysHumansInterpersonal RelationsLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedObesityPrejudicePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID26311336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.