Potential Policies and Laws to Prohibit Weight Discrimination: Public Views from 4 Countries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Policy Points : Policies and legal protections against weight‐based discrimination have broad public support in 4 nations where this discrimination is widely documented. Public support was strongest for policies and laws that would prohibit employers from denying employment, assigning lower wages, and refusing promotion to people based on their weight status. Women and individuals with higher weight expressed the greatest support. Weight discrimination is common in numerous life settings, creating social and economic inequities and adverse health outcomes. Policies and legal measures protecting against such discrimination need to be developed and implemented in the United States and elsewhere and would have considerable public support. Context People viewed as “overweight” or “obese” are vulnerable to weight‐based discrimination, creating inequities and adverse health outcomes. Given the high rates of obesity recorded globally, studies documenting weight discrimination in multiple countries, and an absence of legislation to address this form of discrimination, research examining policy remedies across different countries is needed. Our study provides the first multinational examination of public support for policies and legislation to prohibit weight discrimination. Methods Identical online surveys were completed by 2,866 adults in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland. We assessed public support for potential laws to prohibit weight‐based discrimination, such as adding body weight to existing civil rights statutes, extending disability protections to persons with obesity, and instituting legal measures to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of body weight. We examined sociodemographic and weight‐related characteristics predicting support for antidiscrimination policies, and the differences in these patterns across countries. Findings The majority of participants in the United States, Canada, and Australia agreed that their government should have specific laws in place to prohibit weight discrimination. At least two‐thirds of the participants in all 4 countries expressed support for policies that would make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire, assign lower wages, deny promotions, or terminate qualified employees because of body weight. Women and participants with higher body weight expressed more support for antidiscrimination measures. Beliefs about the causes of obesity were also related to support for these laws. Conclusions Public support for legal measures to prohibit weight discrimination can be found in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland, especially for laws to remedy this discrimination in employment. Our findings provide important information for policymakers and interest groups both nationally and internationally and can help guide discussions about policy priorities to reduce inequities resulting from weight discrimination.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».