4.2 Article

A public health framework for reducing stigma: the example of weight stigma

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 511-520

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-022-10199-3

Keywords

Stigma; Stigmatization; Obesity; Overweight; Weight stigma; Health behaviour; Obesity prevention and control; Obesity psychology; Prejudice; Public health; Social justice and psychology; Stereotyping

Funding

  1. CAUL
  2. Australian National Preventive Health Agency Grant [182BRA2011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article examines stigma and proposes a new framework for classifying different perspectives on how stigma should be handled from a public health perspective. Using weight stigma as an example, the authors draw on prior research to develop a framework for improving the understanding and planning of anti-stigma interventions. This framework can help public health actors to reduce various forms of stigma.
We examine stigma and how it operates, then develop a novel framework to classify the range of positions that are conceptually possible regarding how stigma ought to be handled from a public health perspective. In the case of weight stigma, the possible positions range from encouraging the intentional use of weight stigma as an obesity prevention and reduction strategy to arguing not only that this is harmful but that weight stigma, independent of obesity, needs to be actively challenged and reduced. Using weight stigma as an illustrative example, we draw on prior theoretical work on stigma mechanisms and intervention strategies to develop a framework for improving the understanding, evaluation, and planning of anti-stigma interventions. This framework has the potential to help public health actors to map out how protest, contact, education, and regulation strategies can be used to reduce direct discrimination, structural discrimination, and internalized stigma (self-stigma).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available