Little work has explored the effect of weight-related terms on treatment initiation; only one study has investigated weight-related terms and the psychological constructs associated with treatment uptake. The present study examines the effects of four common weight-related terms on treatment initiation and the moderating effect of weight bias internalization.
Adult participants with overweight and obesity (n = 436) were recruited online and asked to read three vignettes describing clinical encounters; the weight-related term (i.e., "weight," "BMI," "obesity," or "fat") was varied randomly. Participants then reported self-efficacy, cognitive and emotional illness beliefs about obesity (i.e., illness perception), and interest in a weight loss program.
The term "obesity" resulted in the greatest self-efficacy and perceived control over obesity. "Fat" resulted in the least illness coherence (i.e., understanding of obesity). Weight bias internalization did not moderate the effect of term on self-efficacy, nor did it moderate illness perception. No differences in weight loss program enrollment were observed.
Use of the term "obesity" may promote patients' perceived control and self-efficacy. Use of "fat" should be avoided. Results suggest that, despite patient and clinician preference for euphemistic weight terms, use of clinical language such as "obesity" may perform better in provider intervention.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,344,021
of 29,454,253 outputs
Outputs from Obesity
#1,196
of 4,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,238
of 358,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity
#13
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,454,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
