The impact of a weight-centred treatment approach on women's health and health-seeking behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dietetics relies on a conventional weight-centred paradigm that attributes disease risk to fatness and encourages weight loss. This research examines the impact that this weight-centred paradigm has on the health, health-seeking behaviours, and everyday experiences of women who self-identify as large. Methods This was a qualitative, community-based study using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The participants were 18 women who self-identified as being large, either previously or currently, where large was understood among participants as an appropriate descriptor for fatness. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were manually sorted. Coding categories were developed and participants' quotes were assigned to these using thematic analysis. The study had ethics approval. Results Participants described that health professionals’ assumptions and recommendations about their weight negatively affected psychosocial variables and behaviours known to impact on health, such as depression, self-esteem, eating/exercise habits and interpersonal relationships. The assumptions of a weight-centred paradigm underpinned experiences of size discrimination outside the clinic. Conclusions The conventional position towards weight results in attitudes and practices that negatively impact on health and health-seeking behaviour through a range of interlinked pathways. A professional commitment to reappraising the weight-centred paradigm is required to promote good health and avoid overt and inadvertent size discrimination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".