Does terminology matter when measuring stigmatizing attitudes about weight? Validation of a brief, modified attitudes toward obese persons scale.

Objective: Commonly used terms like "obese person" have been identified as stigmatizing by those with lived experience. Thus, this study sought to revise a commonly used measure of weight stigmatizing attitudes, the Attitudes Toward Obese Persons (ATOP) scale. Methods: The original terminology in the 20-item ATOP (e.g., "obese") was compared to a modified version using neutral terms (e.g., "higher weight"). Participants (N = 832) were randomized to either receive the original or modified ATOP. Results: There was a statistically significant difference, with a small effect size (d = -0.22), between the scores of participants who received the original ATOP (M = 69.25) and the modified ATOP (M = 72.85), t(414) = -2.27, p = 0.024. Through principal component analysis, the modified ATOP was best used as a brief, 8-item unidimensional measure. In a second sample, confirmatory factor analysis verified the fit of the brief, 8-item factor structure. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a modified, brief version of the ATOP (ATOP-Heigher Weight; ATOP-HW) with neutral language is suitable for assessing negative attitudes about higher-weight people. The ATOP-HW may slightly underestimate weight stigma compared to the original ATOP, or the language in the ATOP may magnify negative attitudes. Further examination of the terminology used in weight stigma measures is needed to determine how to best assess weight stigma without reinforcing stigmatizing attitudes. The present study's findings suggest that the use of neutral terms in measures of anti-fat bias is a promising solution that warrants further investigation.

Does Terminology Matter When Measuring Stigmatizing Attitudes About Weight? Validation of a Brief, Modified Attitudes Toward Obese Persons Scale.

Objective Commonly used terms like "obese person" have been identified as stigmatizing by those with lived experience. Thus, this study sought to revise a commonly used measure of weight stigmatizing attitudes, the Attitudes Toward Obese Persons (ATOP) scale. Methods The original terminology in the 20-item ATOP (e.g., "obese") was compared to a modified version using neutral terms (e.g., "higher weight"). Participants ( N = 832) were randomized to either receive the original or modified ATOP. Results There was a statistically significant difference, with a low effect size ( d =-0.26), between the scores of participants who received the original ATOP ( M = 69.25) and the modified ATOP ( M = 72.85), t (414) = -2.27, p = .024. Through principal component analysis, the modified ATOP was found to be best used as a brief, 8-item unidimensional measure. In a second sample, confirmatory factor analysis verified the fit of the brief, 8-item factor structure. Conclusions Findings suggest a modified, brief version of the ATOP (ATOP-Heigher Weight; ATOP-HW) with neutral language is suitable for assessing negative attitudes about higher-weight people. The ATOP-HW may slightly underestimate weight stigma compared to the original ATOP. Further examination of the terminology used in weight stigma measures is needed to determine how to best assess weight stigma without reinforcing stigmatizing attitudes. The findings of the present study suggest that the use of neutral terms in measures of anti-fat bias is a promising solution that warrants further investigation.

Differences among feminist and non-feminist women on weight bias internalization, body image, and disordered eating.

BACKGROUND: Research yields mixed results on whether feminist beliefs or self-identification are protective against body image disturbance and eating pathology in non-clinical populations. Further, no studies have examined feminism among those with diagnosed eating disorders. Additionally, previous studies have not examined the relationship between feminist identity and weight stigma. This study investigated these relationships and if there are differences in body image, eating pathology, and weight stigma among feminist identity types in women with eating disorders and college women using ANCOVAs. METHODS: Participants completed self-report measures and were women with eating disorders (N = 100) and college women (N = 240). RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of the women with eating disorders and 75.8% of the college women identified as a feminist. An independent samples t-test found a significantly higher weight bias internalization in the clinical eating disorder sample than in the college women sample. No significant interactions were found between sample type and feminist identity for body image or weight bias internalization. Results were consistent when using a dichotomous feminist identity item and a seven-item continuous feminist identity item. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the clear impacts of the intersection of weight status and gender, results from this study suggest that identifying as a feminist is not sufficient to combate weight stigma. Findings highlight the need for further research investigating weight bias internalization within eating disorder prevention efforts and interventions.

Adolescents' and Young Adults' Recommendations for Implementing Healthcare Transition in Rheumatology: A Mixed Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to elicit adolescents' and young adults' (AYAs) perspectives about how to implement the Six Core Elements of Healthcare Transition within rheumatology care. METHODS: AYAs (ages 16-28 years old) with self-reported rheumatic conditions were recruited through patient organizations and social media. In Phase One (qualitative [QUAL]), 90-minute focus groups were facilitated to elicit AYAs' reactions to Six Core Elements content. In Phase Two (quantitative; QUAN), a national survey was conducted to determine generalizability of recommendations extracted from Phase One. Mixed methods analyses were conducted by a multidisciplinary team of social science researchers, pediatric rheumatologists, and patients. RESULTS: Although focus group participants (n = 39) were previously unfamiliar with the Six Core Elements, they reacted favorably to its format and content. Participants provided suggestions for how to logistically execute each component in the clinic. Additionally, 3 overarching recommendations emerged that focused on motivating AYAs to engage: 1) frame health care transition as an opportunity for empowerment; 2) implement a structured education plan; and 3) consider the role of parents. In line with qualitative findings, survey participants (n = 137) reported that they would prefer to learn most transitional skills from and discuss developmentally specific topics with their rheumatology team. Participants reported they would likely complete programs to learn transitional skills from allied professionals, via patient portals, or in group settings. CONCLUSION: Incorporating patient perspectives into research and clinical practice is an opportunity to strengthen educational programs. AYAs emphasized the importance of gaining independence and becoming empowered through the health care transition process with structured support from their rheumatology teams.