↓ Skip to main content

Epistemological and ethical assessment of obesity bias in industrialized countries

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Epistemological and ethical assessment of obesity bias in industrialized countries
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-6-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacquineau Azétsop, Tisha R Joy

Abstract

Bernard Lonergan's cognitive theory challenges us to raise questions about both the cognitive process through which obesity is perceived as a behaviour change issue and the objectivity of such a moral judgment. Lonergan's theory provides the theoretical tools to affirm that anti-fat discrimination, in the United States of America and in many industrialized countries, is the result of both a group bias that resists insights into the good of other groups and a general bias of anti-intellectualism that tends to set common sense against insights that require any thorough scientific analyses. While general bias diverts the public's attention away from the true aetiology of obesity, group bias sustains an anti-fat culture that subtly legitimates discriminatory practices and policies against obese people. Although anti-discrimination laws may seem to be a reasonable way of protecting obese and overweight individuals from discrimination, obesity bias can be best addressed by reframing the obesity debate from an environmental perspective from which tools and strategies to address both the social and individual determinants of obesity can be developed. Attention should not be concentrated on individuals' behaviour as it is related to lifestyle choices, without giving due consideration to the all-encompassing constraining factors which challenge the social and rational blindness of obesity bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Psychology 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,895,727
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#149
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,164
of 247,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 247,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.