Positive psychological well‐being in women with obesity: A scoping review of qualitative and quantitative primary research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Positive psychological well‐being (PPWB) is generally associated with improved physical health, mental well‐being, and healthy behaviors. However, it is not clear how PPWB differs in women with obesity or if improving PPWB will improve their health. The objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on PPWB in women with obesity. Method A scoping review was conducted in APA PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SocINDEX, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases. Primary research studies, with an analysis of adult women with a BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 with measures of PPWB are included. Results Thirty‐two studies encompassing >57,000 women with obesity, measured constructs of PPWB included: self‐esteem, life satisfaction, positive affect, social support, vitality, happiness, self‐acceptance, and optimism. Most studies showed that PPWB was lower in women with obesity although this association dissipated in studies when health and negative social factors were considered. Improvements in PPWB were associated with weight loss and with successful lifestyle changes with and without weight loss. Positive psychological interventions (PPIs) were used to bolster psychological well‐being. PPIs were associated with improved measures of self‐esteem and well‐being. Conclusions Prospective longitudinal and intervention studies are required to understand how evaluating and fostering PPWB might support gender‐informed obesity care.
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.
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 | 0.036 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it