9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Internalised weight stigma as a mediator of the relationship between experienced/perceived weight stigma and biopsychosocial outcomes: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To systematically review studies that have assessed the mediating role of internalised weight stigma on the relationship between experienced/perceived weight stigma and any biopsychosocial outcomes.

          Methods

          PsycINFO, PsycExtra, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline and Embase were systematically searched. Identified studies were double screened (HB and XPG).

          Results

          Seventeen studies (across 16 articles) met our inclusion criteria ( N = 21,172), and almost all studies measured only psychological outcomes ( n = 15). Eight studies found consistent evidence for internalised weight stigma as a mediator of the relationship between experienced/perceived weight stigma and disordered eating outcomes. Preliminary evidence was found for the mediating role of internalised weight stigma on the relationship between experienced/perceived weight stigma and body shame, body dissatisfaction, exercise behaviour, healthcare experiences and behaviours, bodily pain and parental weight talk. However, the findings were inconsistent for depression and anxiety, although only two studies reported these.

          Conclusion

          This review provides preliminary evidence for internalised weight stigma as an intervening variable in the relationship between experienced/perceived weight stigma and adverse health outcomes. Results suggest that there are potential benefits of interventions addressing internalised weight stigma to improve health outcomes. However, these findings must be considered in the context of the psychometric limitations of the Weight Bias Internalisation Scale, which was used in all but one study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

              The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                xochitl.delapiedadgarcia@acu.edu.au
                Journal
                Int J Obes (Lond)
                Int J Obes (Lond)
                International Journal of Obesity (2005)
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                0307-0565
                1476-5497
                9 October 2021
                : 1-9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411958.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2194 1270, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, ; Melbourne, 3065 Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.1018.8, ISNI 0000 0001 2342 0938, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, ; Albury-Wodonga, 3690 Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5572-3132
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9319-8671
                Article
                982
                10.1038/s41366-021-00982-4
                8501332
                34628466
                4bd56232-683b-42ee-bf7a-0722aa350e00
                © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 14 July 2021
                : 14 September 2021
                : 29 September 2021
                Categories
                Review Article

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                risk factors,public health
                Nutrition & Dietetics
                risk factors, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article