Current trends and future directions in internalized weight stigma research: a scoping review and synthesis of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the first papers focused on internalized weight stigma were published in the mid 2000's, the literature has grown into a robust field that complements existing knowledge on weight stigma. Recently, researchers have documented the need for increased conceptual and measurement clarity, to distinguish internalized weight stigma from body dissatisfaction. Although several systematic reviews have been conducted on portions of the internalized weight stigma literature, no review to date has been conducted examining the entirety of the literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to conduct a systematic scoping review and synthesis of research on internalized weight stigma. Specifically, we sought to examine the broad scope of the literature, terms used to refer to internalized weight stigma, how internalized weight stigma is defined, sample characteristics, and weight-based framings of internalized weight stigma research. METHODS: We conducted a single-concept search across six databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) of peer-reviewed papers published in English on internalized weight stigma. Data were extracted for article authors, year published, journal name and type, general article topic(s), study design, study location, sample characteristics, variables measured, paper framing, term used to describe internalized weight stigma, and definition of internalized weight stigma. RESULTS: Of the 931 unique records screened, 376 were identified for inclusion in the scoping review. The majority of internalized weight stigma research is characterized by cross-sectional methods, has been conducted in the US, and has utilized samples of higher weight white women. Further, 40 unique terms were used across the literature to refer to internalized weight stigma, and 19 different components of definitions of internalized weight stigma were identified. The literature is also characterized by a focus on understanding the association between internalized weight stigma and health outcomes with an emphasis on obesity. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review confirms a lack of concept clarity of internalized weight stigma, in part influenced by an inconsistency in definitions of internalized weight stigma across the literature. Considerations are provided for steps to enhance conceptual and measurement clarity. Given the obesity focused framing of much of the research on internalized weight stigma, considerations are also provided for reducing weight-centric approaches to research. In the early 2000's, researchers began to pay more attention to the potential health impacts of believing societal stereotypes, negative attitudes, and beliefs about higher weight people. When these stereotypes, negative attitudes, and beliefs are directed towards the self, it can have significant consequences for an individual's perceptions of self. This research collected and summarized all existing research published in English on internalized weight stigma. Our results highlighted that researchers do not use consistent terminology to refer to internalized weight stigma and that they do not have a consistent definition of internalized weight stigma. Further, a large proportion of the research is focused on obesity or weight loss, which may unintentionally perpetuate weight stigma in scientific research. We provide several recommendations for researchers to address these challenges in future research on internalized weight stigma as well as recommendations to address other identified gaps in the existing literature.
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 | 0.096 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".