Bias related to overweight and obesity among French psychiatrists: Results of a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to people with a higher weight, physicians are the second most stigmatizing group related to excess weight. As a result of these weight-related biases, the therapeutic relationship with the patient and the quality of care would be negatively affected. In addition, this stigma could negatively impact the clinical practice related to higher weight and avoidance of care. The objective of this study was to assess the stigma of overweight and obesity among psychiatric residents and psychiatrists in France. Specifically, the study aimed to assess factors that may influence weight-related bias among psychiatrists, to explore the relevance of visual assessment of body mass index, and to determine how they this feature is integrated into their practice. An online questionnaire including sociodemographic items, the Fat Phobia Scale, the Beliefs About Obese Persons Scale, the Body Shape Scales, and questions about their clinical practice was distributed via national professional mailing lists and social networks. The survey was answered by 271 seniors or residents in psychiatry. The results indicated a moderate level of weight-related bias among psychiatrists as assessed by the Fat Phobia Scale which was higher in residents than in senior psychiatrists. Over a third of the respondents had no material to assess their patient's weight, and two thirds did not systematically assess overweight or obesity. Finally, the results demonstrate that psychiatrists failed to accurately evaluate overweight or obesity based on male or female silhouettes. It appears that measures should be taken to raise awareness among psychiatrists of the stigmatization of individuals living with a higher weight, as well as to enhance the quality of weight gain care in psychiatry. Selon les personnes vivant avec un poids plus élevé, les médecins sont le deuxième groupe le plus stigmatisant en ce qui concerne l’excès de poids. En raison de la présence de préjugés liés aux poids, la relation thérapeutique avec le patient et la qualité des soins seraient affectées. De plus, cette stigmatisation pourrait avoir un impact négatif sur la pratique clinique en lien avec un poids plus élevé et sur le renoncement aux soins. L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer la stigmatisation du surpoids et de l’obésité chez les internes en psychiatrie et les psychiatres en France. Plus précisément, l’étude vise à évaluer les facteurs susceptibles d’influencer les préjugés liés au poids chez les psychiatres, à explorer la précision et la pertinence de l’évaluation visuelle de l’indice de masse corporelle et à déterminer comment cela est pris en compte dans leur pratique. Un questionnaire en ligne comprenant des éléments sociodémographiques, la Fat Phobia Scale , la Beliefs About Obese Persons Scale , des échelles de silhouettes, et des questions sur leur pratique clinique a été distribué par l’intermédiaire de listes de diffusion professionnelles nationales et les réseaux sociaux. C’est 271 psychiatres seniors ou internes qui ont répondu à l’enquête. Les résultats indiquent un niveau modéré de préjugés liés au poids chez les psychiatres, tels qu’évalués par la Fat Phobia Scale, avec un niveau plus élevé chez les internes que chez les psychiatres seniors. Plus d’un tiers des répondants n’avaient pas de matériel pour évaluer le poids de leurs patients, et deux tiers n’évaluaient pas systématiquement le surpoids ou l’obésité. Enfin, les résultats démontrent que les psychiatres échouent à évaluer correctement le surpoids ou l’obésité en fonction de la silhouette masculine ou féminine. Il apparaît que des mesures devraient être prises pour sensibiliser les psychiatres à la stigmatisation des personnes vivant avec un poids plus élevé, ainsi que pour améliorer la qualité de la prise en charge du gain de poids en psychiatrie.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".