ArticleCancer medicine2024
Patient perspectives of weight stigma across the cancer continuum: A scoping review.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population-Based Associations of Body Mass Index and Treatments Received for Breast Cancer in a Rural, Midwestern State.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Obesity and Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis of Tumor Biology, Staging Accuracy, and Long-Term Outcomes.Obesity science & practice · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Impact of Weight and Weight Stigma on Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Body Weight and Breast Cancer Treatment Experiences: Results From the Share Thoughts on a Breast Cancer Study.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- From Surviving to Thriving: Key Considerations for Weight Control Across Diverse Cancer Survivorship Populations.Obesity science & practice · 2024Review
- Patient perspectives of weight stigma across the cancer continuum: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWeight stigma has been defined as the social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their weight. The purpose of this scoping systematic review was to assess and understand patient experiences with weight stigma in the cancer care setting.
methodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of studies examining shame, prejudice, bias, and stigma in relation to weight and cancer-related care using five databases: PubMed, CINAHL Plus Full Text (ProQuest), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Scopus. Articles were uploaded into Covidence for de-duplication and screening. Included studies were peer reviewed, reported adult patient experiences in cancer-related care, and were published in English between October 2012 and February 2023. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and qualitatively synthesized.
resultsPublications meeting inclusion criteria yielded five studies (n = 113 participants). Most focused on the experiences of women (n = 4) and cancers which predominantly impact women (i.e., breast, cervical, endometrial; n = 4). All stages of the cancer continuum were included with studies examining screening (n = 2), treatment (n = 1), and post-treatment survivorship (n = 2). Weight discrimination was discussed in four studies and weight-biased stereotypes were discussed in three studies. Experiences of weight bias internalization were reported in four studies. One study described an instance of implicit weight bias.
conclusionsLimited studies examine patient experiences of weight stigma in cancer care; however, current evidence suggests that patients do experience weight stigma in cancer-related care. This review highlights critical gaps and a need for more research on the prevalence and impact of weight stigma in cancer screening and care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.