Large patients and lack of preventive health care. Physician or patient driven?

The impact of obesity on gynecologic cancer screening: an integrative literature review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence indicates lower rates of breast and cervical cancer screening among obese compared to nonobese women. This integrative review examines the association between gynecologic cancer screening and body weight, as well as potential barriers to screening.

METHODS

A literature search of standard computerized databases was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published between 1950 and January 2009.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met the criteria for review. Of the 17 studies that evaluated rates of cervical cancer screening, 13 found obese women significantly less likely than their nonobese counterparts to have had a recent Papanicolaou test, a trend that was stronger in white women when compared to African American women. Eight of the 15 studies examining routine mammography found an inverse association between increasing body weight and recent screening, although findings generally pertained only to women who were white and/or severely obese. Possible barriers to care included embarrassment and perceived weight stigma in the clinical setting, lack of appropriately sized examination equipment, and poor patient-provider communication.

DISCUSSION

Further research is needed to clarify the challenges that obese women face in accessing care and to evaluate strategies such as ensuring the availability of appropriate equipment and supplies, the use of alternative screening methodologies, and more culturally sensitive counseling approaches that may improve screening rates in obese women.

Weighing both sides: morality, mortality, and framing contests over obesity

Despite recent and growing media attention surrounding obesity in the United States, the so-called obesity epidemic remains a highly contested scientific and social fact. This article examines the contemporary obesity debate through systematic examination of the claims and claimants involved in the controversy. We argue that four primary groups-antiobesity researchers, antiobesity activists, fat acceptance researchers, and fat acceptance activists-are at the forefront of this controversy and that these groups are fundamentally engaged in framing contests over the nature and consequences of excess body weight. While members of the fat acceptance groups embrace a body diversity frame, presenting fatness as a natural and largely inevitable form of diversity, members of the antiobesity camp frame higher weights as risky behavior akin to smoking, implying that body weight is under personal control and that people have a moral and medical responsibility to manage their weight. Both groups sometimes frame obesity as an illness, which limits blame by suggesting that weight is biologically or genetically determined but simultaneously stigmatizes fat bodies as diseased. While the antiobesity camp frames obesity as an epidemic to increase public attention, fat acceptance activists argue that concern over obesity is distracting attention from a host of more important health issues for fat Americans. We examine the strategies claimants use to establish their own credibility or discredit their opponents, and explain how the fat acceptance movement has exploited structural opportunities and cultural resources created by AIDS activism and feminism to wield some influence over U.S. public health approaches. We conclude that notions of morality play a central role in the controversy over obesity, as in many medical disputes, and illustrate how medical arguments about body weight can be used to stymie rights claims and justify morality-based fears.

Primary care physicians' attitudes about obesity and its treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess physicians' attitudes toward obese patients and the causes and treatment of obesity.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A questionnaire assessed attitudes in 2 geographically representative national random samples of 5000 primary care physicians. In one sample (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI of 30 to 40 kg/m(2), and in the other (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI > 40.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty physicians responded. They rated physical inactivity as significantly more important than any other cause of obesity (p < 0.0009). Two other behavioral factors-overeating and a high-fat diet-received the next highest mean ratings. More than 50% of physicians viewed obese patients as awkward, unattractive, ugly, and noncompliant. The treatment of obesity was rated as significantly less effective (p < 0.001) than therapies for 9 of 10 chronic conditions. Most respondents (75%), however, agreed with the consensus recommendations that a 10% reduction in weight is sufficient to improve obesity-related health complications and viewed a 14% weight loss (i.e., 78 +/- 5 kg from an initial weight of 91 kg) as an acceptable treatment outcome. More than one-half (54%) would spend more time working on weight management issues if their time was reimbursed appropriately.

DISCUSSION

Primary care physicians view obesity as largely a behavioral problem and share our broader society's negative stereotypes about the personal attributes of obese persons. Practitioners are realistic about treatment outcomes but view obesity treatment as less effective than treatment of most other chronic conditions.