Developing a Weight-Neutral Health Intervention in Denmark: Protocol for a Co-Design Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lifestyle interventions for weight loss are generally ineffective in achieving clinically meaningful long-term reductions in body weight and may contribute to negative behavior such as weight cycling or disordered eating. Negative focus on high weight may also contribute to weight stigma. Weight stigma includes negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people with big bodies and can result in psychological stress and unfavorable health outcomes. Taken together, it is possible that the potential harms of lifestyle-based weight loss interventions may exceed the potential benefits. Weight-neutral health (WNH) has emerged as an alternative strategy advocating for size diversity, intuitive eating, and joyful physical movement, all without placing emphasis on weight reduction. Objective: This protocol outlines the study design for the co-design process of developing a WNH complex intervention, engaging relevant stakeholders in Denmark. Methods: We base our understanding of WNH on the principles from Health at Every Size: body acceptance, joyful movement, intuitive eating, and weight stigma reduction. The co-design development process is based on the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions and applies methods from human-centered design through 4 iterative design phases of engaging stakeholders-discover: search existing literature, and conduct interviews with Danish municipal stakeholders working with WNH and other expert stakeholders; define: coproduction of seminars with health professionals (HPs) with knowledge of WNH, and semistructured interviews with people with BMI≥30 kg/m2 who have participated in existing WNH interventions; design: content-creating workshops with HPs and people with BMI≥30 kg/m2; and validate: evaluate seminars, plan feasibility, and produce materials. The data will be analyzed thematically to build a scaffold for the intervention activities and components. In further analysis, we will explore how health is performed, meaning the actions and dialogues that arise when dealing with health guidelines, the societal body, weight, and health expectations, in the context of the intervention. Results: The project is fully funded. As of August 2024, the co-design process was in the closing phase. In total, 15 HPs were included, some of whom have larger body sizes. This provides a dual perspective, combining their personal experiences of living with a high BMI with their professional expertise. In total, 16 people with BMI≥30 kg/m2 have generously shared their experiences with WNH programs, including the difficulties of moving away from external demands and personal wishes for weight loss. Their contributions have nuanced and unfolded our understanding of the principles of WNH in a Danish setting. Conclusions: The intervention designed in and from the co-design process will be tested for feasibility in 2025. The findings from the feasibility study will inform a future randomized controlled trial and present novel findings in the field of health management. The long-term goal is to implement the intervention in a Danish municipal setting free of charge.
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 | 0.086 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.020 |
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".