Exploring the impact of physical activity-related weight stigma among women with self-identified obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight stigma contributes to negative health and health inequity. For women with obesity, weight stigma is prevalent in their everyday lives, including in the context of physical activity. Our current understanding of physical activity-related weight stigma is limited, and in-depth research is needed to promote inclusive and stigma-free physical activity. The purpose of this study was to understand how women with obesity experience, respond to, and perceive physical activity-related weight stigma. Sixteen women (aged 20–59 years) participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Using Interpretive Description, a practice-based form of qualitative inquiry, we found that women’s experiences of physical activity-related weight stigma reflected structural, public, and self-stigma. These experiences included stigmatising comments and treatment, lack of appropriate and affordable clothing options, inaccessible exercise equipment, and weight-centric physical activity messages. In response, the women recounted feeling negative emotions (e.g. shame, sadness, guilt, anger) and had a heightened anticipation of stigma. They used self-protection techniques, attempted to change their body, and occasionally acted in resistance to socially held weight-related beliefs. Weight stigma impacted the women’s lives in a myriad of ways, which included viewing physical activity as a lose-lose situation and as a means to an end (i.e. for weight loss). For some women who reported resisting weight stigma, physical activity began to be uncoupled from body weight. The findings have implications for shifting physical activity promotion and practices to be more inclusive of women with obesity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".