4.6 Article

Trends in professional advice to lose weight among obese adults, 1994 to 2000

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 9, Pages 814-818

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0172.x

Keywords

physician behavior; health care delivery; obesity; weight management; socioeconomic status

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [U1CRH00035-03] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CONTEXT: Obesity is a fast-growing threat to public health in the U.S., but information on trends in professional advice to lose weight is limited. OBJECTIVE: We studied whether rising obesity prevalence in the U.S. was accompanied by an increasing trend in professional advice to lose weight among obese adults. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a cross-sectional prevalence study, from 1994 (n= 10,705), 1996 (n=13,800), 1998 (n=18,816), and 2000 (n=26,454) to examine changes in advice reported by obese adults seen for primary care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported advice from a health care professional to lose weight. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2000, the proportion of obese persons receiving advice to lose weight fell from 44.0% to 40.0%. Among obese persons not graduating from high school, advice declined from 41.4% to 31.8%; and for those with annual household incomes below $25,000, advice dropped from 44.3% to 38.1%. In contrast, the prevalence of advice among obese persons with a college degree or in the highest income group remained relatively stable and high (> 45%) over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in professional advice to lose weight associated with income and educational attainment increased from 1994 to 2000. There is a need for mechanisms that allow health care professionals to devote sufficient attention to weight control and to link with evidence-based weight loss interventions, especially those that target groups most at risk for 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