Influence of weight discrimination on weight loss goals and self‐selected weight loss interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: What is already known about this subject • There is a discrepancy between clinical and patient goals for weight loss. • Evidence suggests that some bariatric patients highly value, and are willing to endure hardships for weight loss. • Obesity is commonly framed as an easily reversed and individual problem, which in turn promotes weight discrimination. What this study adds • Patient beliefs about weight loss are in accordance with social understandings of obesity but not with current treatment options. • Patients may not be willing to endure hardships for weight loss. • Weight discrimination may relate to how patients approach weight loss. SUMMARY: Bariatric patients report weight loss goals, which are three times higher than weight loss recommended by clinicians. It is unclear which weight loss interventions patients feel are necessary to reach these goals or whether responses associate with perceptions of weight discrimination. One hundred fifteen patients (BMI = 40.0 ± 6.9 kg m(-2) , age = 47.2 ± 12.2 years, 85% female, 77% reporting weight discrimination) were surveyed from weight management clinics. Participants reported ideal weight losses of 37.6 ± 16.7 kg (33% of initial weight), and the majority felt weight loss could be achieved through lifestyle changes such as improved physical activity (80%) or diet (52%), with fewer reporting pharmacotherapy (8%), surgery (12%) or genetic modification (7%) as necessary for goal attainment. Participants selecting lifestyle changes or pharmacotherapy for weight loss reported ideal weight loss goals that would generally be achievable through surgical means (32% and 33%, respectively), and participants selecting surgical intervention reported ideal goals at the upper end of what is generally achievable with this intervention (38%). All participants selecting surgery or genetic modifications reported experiencing weight discrimination. These results indicate a disparity between weight loss goals and selected interventions, and suggest that weight discrimination is associated with the selection of potentially riskier weight loss interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".