3.8 Article

Impact of perceived weight stigma among underserved women on doctor-patient relationships

Journal

OBESITY SCIENCE & PRACTICE
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 128-135

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/osp4.40

Keywords

Minorities; obesity; patient-provider communication; weight stigma

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [R21CA165939]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate how perception of weight stigma among under-served women with obesity impacts doctor-patient relationships. Methods This study consisted of an interviewer-administered survey of 149 women with obesity (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg m(-2)) immediately after their physician visit at four Federally Qualified Health Centers. Perceptions of weight stigma and physician empathy were measured using the Stigma Situations in Health Care instrument and Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure, respectively. Associations of CARE and Stigma scores with BMI and patient characteristics were analysed using Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test and ordinal logistic regression. Results The mean CARE score was 42.1 (standard deviation 8.4; range 11.0-50.0), and mean stigma score was 4.6 (standard deviation 7.6; range 0-43.0). Each increase in BMI category was associated with almost twofold increased odds of higher perception of stigma (odds ratio, 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.30-2.78, P = 0.001). BMI was not associated with CARE. However, for each increase in stigma category, the odds of lower CARE score doubled (odds ratio, 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.75, P = 0.0005). Conclusions While BMI was not associated with perception of physician empathy, higher frequency of weight stigmatizing situations was negatively associated with perception of physician empathy. Reducing weight stigma in primary care could improve doctor-patient relationships and quality of care in patients with 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

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available