4.5 Article

Weight Communication: How Do Health Professionals Communicate about Weight with Their Patients in Primary Care Settings?

期刊

HEALTH COMMUNICATION
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 561-567

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1857516

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate how health professionals communicate about weight with their patients. The findings revealed that professionals use four main approaches: analyzing patient perspectives, focusing on overall health, addressing weight directly, and avoiding the topic altogether. Factors influencing their approach include their outlook on obesity and patient receptiveness and motivation.
This study aimed to investigate how health professionals (HPs) communicate about weight with their patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 health professionals (7 family physicians, 13 nurse practitioners, and 13 dietitians) working in multidisciplinary healthcare settings in Canada. Thematic analysis revealed four main approaches used by HPs to communicate about weight: 1) Analyzing patient perspectives, 2) focusing on overall health rather than weight, 3) directly addressing the topic, and 4) avoiding the topic. The approach chosen was influenced by HPs' outlook on obesity; for example, those who believed obesity to be a chronic disease did not hesitate to communicate about weight. However, some HPs who reported having obesity mentioned avoiding the topic of weight with their patients and emphasized the importance of establishing a trusting relationship with patients before addressing the topic. The approach chosen by HPs also seemed to be influenced by patient receptiveness, level of readiness, and motivation. Weight communication can be sensitive and the approach used to begin the topic of weight may differ based on patient- and HP factors. Future clinical practice guidelines may benefit from shifting toward communicating about modifiable risk factors rather than weight.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据