ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progressing Cross-Sector Collaboration for People With Eating Disorders and Higher Weight: Priority Actions From an Expert Roundtable Using a Modified Nominal Group Technique.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- An online educational resource addressing eating disorders during the menopause transition: a brief evaluation study.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Developing an educational resource for people experiencing eating disorders during the menopause transition: A qualitative co-design study.Journal of eating disorders · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWeight bias is characterised by negative attitudes towards people with a higher weight and is widespread in healthcare. Primary care professionals sometimes avoid discussing weight with patients due to concerns about upsetting them, insufficient training, resources, or referral pathways. There is, however, a responsibility for primary care professionals to address the health needs of patients, which may require discussing weight.
objectiveThe current study aimed to understand primary care professionals and trainee perceptions of the appropriateness of weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant approaches for discussing weight with higher weight individuals when patients were and were not seeking weight management advice.
designMixed methods design.
participantsPrimary care professionals and trainees (N = 112) within Australia. APPROACH: Participants first completed an online survey and provided demographic data and completed measures of implicit and explicit weight bias. Secondly, participants viewed simulated patient consultations, reflecting each of the three approaches (weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant) in a weight-related and non-weight related context. Participants then evaluated the appropriateness of the language and strategies used. KEY
resultsThe participants showed, on average, low to moderate levels of explicit weight bias but high levels of implicit weight bias. For the consultations, language and strategies of the holistic approach were considered the most appropriate in both contexts. In the weight-related consultation, language used in the weight-centric and avoidant approaches were deemed equally inappropriate. However, weight-centric strategies were considered more appropriate than avoidant strategies. In the non-weight related consultation, the language and strategies of the avoidant approach were considered more appropriate than those of the weight-centric approach.
conclusionsPrimary care professionals and trainees favoured the holistic approach to discussing weight when patients presented with weight-related or non-weight related concerns. These findings have potential practical implications for health professional education.
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.