4.6 Review

Obesity and discrimination - a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 43-55

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12343

Keywords

discrimination; obesity; stigma; systematic review

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany [FKZ: 01EO1501]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P01AG020166, U19AG051426] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Research on obesity has shown that stigma often accompanies obesity and impacts many life domains. No previous research has systematically reviewed published literature about the prevalence and the nature of perceived weight discrimination in individuals with obesity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to fill that gap. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted without time limits using the databases Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models. Observational studies pertaining to (i) prevalence estimates and (ii) forms of perceived weight discrimination among individuals with obesity were included. Results: Of 4393 citations retrieved, nine citations retrieved, nine studies met inclusion criteria. Pooled prevalence was 19.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7 to 29.8%) for individuals with class I obesity (Body mass index [BMI] = 30-35 kgm(-2)) and 41.8% (95% CI 36.9 to 46.9%) for individuals with more extreme obesity (BMI> 35 kgm(-2)). Findings from nationally representative US samples revealed higher prevalence estimates in individuals with higher BMI values (BMI> 35 kgm(-2)) and in women. Conclusions: The results provide evidence that perceptions of weight discrimination by individuals with obesity were common, and its negative consequences are highly relevant issues within society and need to be the focus of potential interventions. (C) 2015 World Obesity

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available