https://vascular.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/vascular/documents/endovasc/guidelines/PIIS0741521406022968.pdf

Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II)

Obese individuals are highly stigmatized and face multiple forms of prejudice and discrimination because of their weight (1,2). The prevalence of weight discrimination in the United States has increased by 66% over the past decade (3), and is comparable to rates of racial discrimination, especially among women (4). Weight bias translates into inequities in employment settings, health-care facilities, and educational institutions, often due to widespread negative stereotypes that overweight and obese persons are lazy, unmotivated, lacking in selfdiscipline, less competent, noncompliant, and sloppy (2,5–7). These stereotypes are prevalent and are rarely challenged in Western society, leaving overweight and obese persons vulnerable to social injustice, unfair treatment, and impaired quality of life as a result of substantial disadvantages and stigma. In 2001, Puhl and Brownell published the first comprehensive review of several decades of research documenting bias and stigma toward overweight and obese persons (2). This review summarized weight stigma in domains of employment, health care, and education, demonstrating the vulnerability of obese persons to many forms of unfair treatment. Despite evidence of weight bias in important areas of living, the authors noted many gaps in research regarding the nature and extent of weight stigma in various settings, the lack of science on emotional and physical health consequences of weight bias, and the paucity of interventions to reduce negative stigma. In recent years, attention to weight bias has increased, with a growing recognition of the pervasiveness of weight bias and stigma, and its potential harmful consequences for obese persons. The aim of this article is to provide an update of scientific evidence on weight bias toward overweight and obese adults through a systematic review of published literature since the 2001 article by Puhl and Brownell. This review expands upon previous findings of weight bias in major domains of living, documents new areas where weight bias has been studied, and highlights ongoing research questions that need to be addressed to advance this field of study. A systematic literature search of studies published between January 2000 and May 2008 was undertaken on computerized psychological, medical, social science, sport, and education databases including PsycINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, and SPORTDiscus. The following keyword combinations were used: weight, obese, obesity, overweight, BMI, fat, fatness, size, heavy, large, appearance, big, heavyweight, bias, biased, discrimination, discriminatory, discriminate, stigma, stigmatized, stigmatization, prejudice, prejudicial, stereotype(s), stereotypical, stereotyping, victimization, victimize(d), blame(d), blaming, shame(d), shaming, teasing, tease(d), unfair, bully, bullying, harassment, assumptions, attributions, education, health, health care, sales, employment, wages, promotion, adoption, jury, customer service, housing, media, television. Reference lists of retrieved articles and books were also reviewed, and manual searches were conducted in the databases and journals for authors who had published in this field. Most studies retrieved for this review were published in the United States. Any articles published internationally are noted with their country of origin. Research on weight stigma in adolescents and children was excluded from this review, as this literature was recently reviewed elsewhere (8). Unpublished manuscripts and dissertations were also excluded. In addition, issues pertaining to measurement of weight stigmatization, and demographic variables affecting vulnerability to weight bias such as gender, age, race, and body weight are not addressed in this review. This article instead primarily reviews the evidence of specific areas where weight bias occurs toward adults and its consequences for those affected. This article is organized similarly to the first review published by Puhl and Brownell (2), with sections on weight bias in settings of employment, health care, and education. New sections have been added including weight bias in interpersonal relationships and the media, as well as psychological and physical health consequences of weight bias, and the status of stigma-reduction research. As with the 2001 article, this review also provides an update on legal initiatives to combat weight discrimination, and outlines specific questions for future research.

https://www.sochob.cl/pdf/obesidad_adulto/The%20Stigma%20of%20Obesity%20%20A%20Review%20and%20Update.pdf

The stigma of obesity: a review and update.

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines to serve as a foundation for its communication, policy, and community strategies and ultimately, to affect dietary and physical activity patterns among Americans. These Guidelines, published every 5 years, are developed by a national panel of experts in cancer research, prevention, epidemiology, public health, and policy, and as such, they represent the most current scientific evidence related to dietary and activity patterns and cancer risk. The ACS Guidelines include recommendations for individual choices regarding diet and physical activity patterns, but those choices occur within a community context that either facilitates or interferes with healthy behaviors. Community efforts are essential to create a social environment that promotes healthy food choices and physical activity. Therefore, this committee presents one key recommendation for community action to accompany the four recommendations for individual choices to reduce cancer risk. This recommendation for community action recognizes that a supportive social environment is indispensable if individuals at all levels of society are to have genuine opportunities to choose healthy behaviors. The ACS Guidelines are consistent with guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association for the prevention of coronary heart disease and diabetes, as well as for general health promotion, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services' 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

http://www.iacld.ir/DL/elm/ajcguidelinesonnutritionandphysicalactivityforcancerprevention.pdf

American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer with Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity

OBJECTIVE: Health planners and policy makers are increasingly asking for a feasible method to identify vulnerable persons with the greatest health needs. We conducted a systematic review of the association between a single item assessing general self-rated health (GSRH) and mortality. DATA SOURCES: Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE database searches for studies published from January 1966 to September 2003. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators independently searched English language prospective, community-based cohort studies that reported (1) all-cause mortality, (2) a question assessing GSRH; and (3) an adjusted relative risk or equivalent. The investigators searched the citations to determine inclusion eligibility and abstracted data by following a standarized protocol. Of the 163 relevant studies identified, 22 cohorts met the inclusion criteria. Using a random effects model, compared with persons reporting “excellent” health status, the relative risk (95% confidence interval) for all-cause mortality was 1.23 [1.09, 1.39], 1.44 [1.21, 1.71], and 1.92 [1.64, 2.25] for those reporting “good,” “fair,” and “poor” health status, respectively. This relationship was robust in sensitivity analyses, limited to studies that adjusted for comorbid illness, functional status, cognitive status, and depression, and across subgroups defined by gender and country of origin. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with “poor” self-rated health had a 2-fold higher mortality risk compared with persons with “excellent” self-rated health. Subjects’ responses to a simple, single-item GSRH question maintained a strong association with mortality even after adjustment for key covariates such as functional status, depression, and co-morbidity.

/pdf/mortality-prediction-with-a-single-general-self-rated-health-3xp6hmt7nw.pdf

Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis.

This Viewpoint summarizes the updated recommendations of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ recently released 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

/pdf/dietary-guidelines-for-americans-4dk1zfywgh.pdf

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Fast Food, Race/Ethnicity, and Income: A Geographic Analysis

Objective
We compared single- and multi-item measures of general self-rated health (GSRH) to predict mortality and clinical events a large population of veteran patients.

/pdf/predicting-mortality-and-healthcare-utilization-with-a-3wlpkwckie.pdf

Predicting Mortality and Healthcare Utilization with a Single Question

Background: Multi-item health status measures can be lengthy, expensive, and burdensome to collect. Single-item measures may be an alternative. We compared measurement properties of two single-item, general self-rated health (GSRH) questions to assess how well they captured information in a validated, multi-item instrument. Methods: We administered a general health survey (SF-12V) that included “standard” and “comparative” forms of a GSRH. We repeated the survey two weeks later to the same 75 medically stable outpatients to test for GSRH reproducibility, reliability, and validity using SF-12V Physical Functioning and Emotional Health subscales as a reference. Results: At each survey administration, the two GSRH questions demonstrated good alternate forms reliability (first administration: r=0.74, p<0.001; second administration: r=0.74, p<0.001) and good reproducibility (“standard”: ICC 0.69; “comparative”: ICC 0.85). Both GSRH items correlated with physical functioning (“standard”: r=0.66; “comparative”: r=0.56) and emotional health measures (“standard”: r=0.65; “comparative”: r=0.59). Mean subscale measures associated with responses in each GSRH category were significantly different (ANOVA, p<0.001), indicating strong discriminant scale performance. Conclusions: Our single-item, GSRH questions demonstrated good reproducibility, reliability, and strong concurrent and discriminant scale performance with an established health status measure.

Karen B. DeSalvo

Papers

Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Fast Food, Race/Ethnicity, and Income: A Geographic Analysis

Predicting Mortality and Healthcare Utilization with a Single Question

Assessing measurement properties of two single-item general health measures.