Cited by 185Obesity and Health PracticesEating Disorders and BehaviorsObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Obese Patients' Perceptions of Treatment Outcomes and the Factors That Influence Them

Foster, Gary D., Wadden, Thomas A., Phelan, Suzanne, Sarwer, David B., Sanderson, Rebecca Swain·2001·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable professional consensus that modest weight losses of 5% to 10% are successful for reducing the comorbid conditions associated with obesity, obese patients often desire weight losses 2 to 3 times greater than this. Examining ways to reduce the disparities between treatment expectations and subsequent outcomes, this study evaluated the role of physical characteristics, treatment setting, and mood in patients' evaluations of treatment outcomes. METHODS: This study was conducted in a university outpatient weight loss clinic with a sample of 397 obese individuals seeking weight loss by a variety of modalities. Before treatment, participants' heights and weights were measured, and the Beck Depression Inventory and the Goals and Relative Weight Questionnaire were administered. RESULTS: Outcome evaluations ranged from 64.4 +/- 11.1 kg (mean +/- SD) for dream weight to 90.1 +/- 19.1 kg for disappointed weight. Initial body weight was the strongest predictor of disappointed, acceptable, and happy weights (beta =.90,.76, and.57, respectively). Sex (beta = -.37) and height (beta =.37) were the strongest determinants of dream weight. Heavier participants chose higher absolute weights, but the weight loss required to reach each of the outcomes was greater for heavier than for lighter patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data signal a therapeutic dilemma in which the amount of weight loss produced by the best behavioral and/or pharmacologic treatments is viewed as even less than disappointing. Patients with the highest pretreatment weights are likely to have the most unrealistic expectations for success.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.161.17.2133

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foster, G. D., Wadden, T. A., Phelan, S., Sarwer, D. B., & Sanderson, R. S.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Foster, Gary D.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2001-09-24
Volume
161
Issue
17
Pages
2133
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054101269
Cited by
185
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
29.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk056114-05)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK 56114)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
obesity, weight loss expectations, treatment outcome assessment, patient perspectives, weight loss goals, initial body weight, sex differences, height, depression, weight loss clinics
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior Therapy, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Gastroplasty, Weight Loss, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review