What overweight patients consider a healthy body size and why
Research type
Research Study
Full title
What is considered a healthy body size from the perspective of clinically overweight patients and why do they hold these views?
IRAS ID
197707
Contact name
Richard Meakin
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University College London
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
Z6364106/2015/12/44, UCL Data Protection Registration Number
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 2 months, 13 days
Research summary
Over the past 25 years, the prevalence of obesity has escalated into a global epidemic which the World Health Organisation terms as ‘globesity’. Many studies have attempted to investigate why this may be the case, and 3 main ideas have been highlighted: weight misperception (perceptually underestimating your true weight, thereby believing you are a healthier size/weight than you actually are), normalisation of obesity (society becoming used to obesity and perceiving it as normal), and cultural body size preferences. Investigation of the latter has never been conducted in the UK. Therefore, this study aims to investigate what is considered a healthy body size from the perspective of clinically overweight patients and why they hold these views. In order to do this, between March 2016 - May 2016, approximately 12-15 participants (overweight males or females) will be recruited from Tynemouth Medical Practice with the help of GPs and nurses, as well as a poster campaign. The research involves a card sorting exercise using Stunkard’s Body Silhouettes and in-depth semi-structured interviews, all of which will take place in the practice.
The findings could potentially shed some light on another area health professionals could focus on in their bid to tackle the growing obesity epidemic in the UK - lay beliefs of what a healthy body size is.This research will be funded by the Department of Primary Care and Population Health at the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, to which the researcher belongs.
REC name
West Midlands - Black Country Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/WM/0113
Date of REC Opinion
18 Mar 2016
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion