↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of weight stigma experienced by middle-older aged, general-practice patients with obesity in disadvantaged areas of Australia: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of weight stigma experienced by middle-older aged, general-practice patients with obesity in disadvantaged areas of Australia: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5556-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Spooner, Upali W. Jayasinghe, Nighat Faruqi, Nigel Stocks, Mark F. Harris

Abstract

Rates of obesity have increased globally and weight stigma is commonly experienced by people with obesity. Feeling stigmatised because of one's weight can be a barrier to healthy eating, physical activity and to seeking help for weight management. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of perceived weight among middle-older aged patients with obesity attending general practices in socioeconomically disadvantaged urban areas of Australia. As part of a randomised clinical trial in Australia, telephone interviews were conducted with 120 patients from 17 general practices in socioeconomically disadvantaged of Sydney and Adelaide. Patients were aged 40-70 years with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. The interviews included questions relating to socio-demographic variables (e.g. gender, language spoken at home), experiences of weight-related discrimination, and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Multi-level logistic regression data analysis was undertaken to examine predictors of recent experiences of weight-related discrimination ("weight stigma"). The multi-level model showed that weight stigma was positively associated with obesity category 2 (BMI = 35 to < 40; OR 4.47 (95% CI 1.03 to 19.40)) and obesity category 3 (BMI = ≥ 40; OR 27.06 (95% CI 4.85 to 150.95)), not being employed (OR 7.70 (95% CI 2.17 to 27.25)), non-English speaking backgrounds (OR 5.74 (95% CI 1.35 to 24.45)) and negatively associated with the HLQ domain: ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.28)). There was no association between weight stigma and gender, age, education or the other HLQ domains examined. Weight stigma disproportionately affected the patients with obesity most in need of support to manage their weight: those with more severe obesity, from non-English speaking backgrounds and who were not in employment. Additionally, those who had experienced weight stigma were less able to actively engage with healthcare providers further compounding their disadvantage. This suggests the need for a more proactive approach to identify weight stigma by healthcare providers. Addressing weight stigma at the individual, system and population levels is recommended. The trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN126400102162 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Researcher 7 5%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 54 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 15%
Psychology 15 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 58 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,197,836
of 23,067,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,464
of 15,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,584
of 330,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#84
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,067,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.