Qualified and student healthcare professionals in Singapore display explicit weight bias. A cross-sectional survey.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Obesity research & clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1016/j.orcp.2024.10.001
Anthony James Goff, Cindy Li Whye Ng, Chien Joo Lim, Lester Edmond Jones, Yingshan Lee, Kwang Wei Tham
{"title":"Qualified and student healthcare professionals in Singapore display explicit weight bias. A cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Anthony James Goff, Cindy Li Whye Ng, Chien Joo Lim, Lester Edmond Jones, Yingshan Lee, Kwang Wei Tham","doi":"10.1016/j.orcp.2024.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, many healthcare professionals display weight bias and contribute towards weight stigma. However, weight bias of healthcare professionals in Asia is underexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate weight bias of healthcare professionals in Singapore and explore differences between qualified and student healthcare professionals, plus between i) gender, ii) Body Mass Index (BMI) and iii) ethnicity categories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Healthcare professionals in Singapore engaged in a web-based survey (March 2023). Participants answered general categorical questions, plus two explicit weight bias outcomes (Fat Phobia Scale and Antifat Attitudes questionnaire). Descriptive statistics summarize outcome findings. Factors associated with degree of weight bias were explored between categories (i.e. student vs qualified, plus gender, BMI and ethnicity categories). Significance was set at p = <0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five percent of participants (n = 294/525) were qualified healthcare professionals. Mean Fat Phobia Scale score (/5) was 3.19 ± 0.20 (range 2.00-3.86) and total Antifat Attitudes questionnaire score (/9) was 3.20 ± 1.25 (range 0.00-6.85). No significant differences were observed between categories for the Fat Phobia Scale. For the Antifat Attitudes questionnaire, those with underweight BMI's had lower total scores compared to those with healthy (2.54 vs 3.23, MD -0.70) or overweight (2.54 vs 3.41, MD -0.87) BMI's. No other differences in total Antifat Attitudes Scores were observed. However, differences did exist in Antifat Attitude subdomain scores between gender and ethnicity categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion(s): </strong>Qualified and student healthcare professionals in Singapore display comparable levels of explicit weight bias. This may lead to stigma, and subsequent inequalities in, and poorer provision of, care for people living with overweight and obesity.</p>","PeriodicalId":19408,"journal":{"name":"Obesity research & clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity research & clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2024.10.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Globally, many healthcare professionals display weight bias and contribute towards weight stigma. However, weight bias of healthcare professionals in Asia is underexplored.

Objective: To investigate weight bias of healthcare professionals in Singapore and explore differences between qualified and student healthcare professionals, plus between i) gender, ii) Body Mass Index (BMI) and iii) ethnicity categories.

Methods: Healthcare professionals in Singapore engaged in a web-based survey (March 2023). Participants answered general categorical questions, plus two explicit weight bias outcomes (Fat Phobia Scale and Antifat Attitudes questionnaire). Descriptive statistics summarize outcome findings. Factors associated with degree of weight bias were explored between categories (i.e. student vs qualified, plus gender, BMI and ethnicity categories). Significance was set at p = <0.05.

Results: Fifty-five percent of participants (n = 294/525) were qualified healthcare professionals. Mean Fat Phobia Scale score (/5) was 3.19 ± 0.20 (range 2.00-3.86) and total Antifat Attitudes questionnaire score (/9) was 3.20 ± 1.25 (range 0.00-6.85). No significant differences were observed between categories for the Fat Phobia Scale. For the Antifat Attitudes questionnaire, those with underweight BMI's had lower total scores compared to those with healthy (2.54 vs 3.23, MD -0.70) or overweight (2.54 vs 3.41, MD -0.87) BMI's. No other differences in total Antifat Attitudes Scores were observed. However, differences did exist in Antifat Attitude subdomain scores between gender and ethnicity categories.

Conclusion(s): Qualified and student healthcare professionals in Singapore display comparable levels of explicit weight bias. This may lead to stigma, and subsequent inequalities in, and poorer provision of, care for people living with overweight and obesity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新加坡的合格和在校医护人员表现出明显的体重偏差。一项横断面调查。
背景:在全球范围内,许多医护人员都表现出体重偏见,并导致体重污名化。然而,亚洲医护专业人员的体重偏见却未得到充分探讨:调查新加坡医护专业人员的体重偏见,探讨合格医护专业人员与学生医护专业人员之间的差异,以及 i) 性别、ii) 体重指数 (BMI) 和 iii) 种族类别之间的差异。方法:新加坡的医护专业人员参与了一项网络调查(2023 年 3 月)。参与者回答了一般的分类问题,以及两个明确的体重偏见结果(脂肪恐惧症量表和反胖态度问卷)。描述性统计总结了调查结果。在不同类别(即学生与合格人员,以及性别、体重指数和种族类别)之间探讨了与体重偏差程度相关的因素。显著性设定为 p = 结果:55%的参与者(n = 294/525)是合格的医疗保健专业人员。脂肪恐惧症量表平均分(/5)为 3.19 ± 0.20(范围 2.00-3.86),反脂肪态度问卷总分(/9)为 3.20 ± 1.25(范围 0.00-6.85)。在 "脂肪恐惧症量表 "中,不同类别之间没有明显差异。在 "反脂肪态度 "问卷中,体重指数(BMI)偏低者的总分低于体重指数(BMI)健康者(2.54 vs 3.23,MD -0.70)或体重指数(BMI)偏高者(2.54 vs 3.41,MD -0.87)。在反脂肪态度总分方面没有观察到其他差异。但是,不同性别和种族的人在反肥胖态度子域得分上存在差异:结论:新加坡的合格医护人员和学生医护人员表现出的体重偏见程度相当。这可能会导致对超重和肥胖症患者的偏见,进而导致不平等现象和护理服务质量下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obesity research & clinical practice
Obesity research & clinical practice 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: The aim of Obesity Research & Clinical Practice (ORCP) is to publish high quality clinical and basic research relating to the epidemiology, mechanism, complications and treatment of obesity and the complication of obesity. Studies relating to the Asia Oceania region are particularly welcome, given the increasing burden of obesity in Asia Pacific, compounded by specific regional population-based and genetic issues, and the devastating personal and economic consequences. The journal aims to expose health care practitioners, clinical researchers, basic scientists, epidemiologists, and public health officials in the region to all areas of obesity research and practice. In addition to original research the ORCP publishes reviews, patient reports, short communications, and letters to the editor (including comments on published papers). The proceedings and abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the Asia Oceania Association for the Study of Obesity is published as a supplement each year.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Lisosan G (fermented wheat) on reactive hypoglycemia after bariatric surgery. Can adiposity measures enhance the predictive power of the triglyceride-glucose index for metabolic syndrome in adults in the United States? Characteristics in pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery. Qualified and student healthcare professionals in Singapore display explicit weight bias. A cross-sectional survey. Effect of body mass index on semen quality, sperm chromatin integrity and sperm DNA methylation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1