Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 592

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Ethics of Childhood Obesity Treatment - from the Childhood Obesity Task Force (COTF) of European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO)

Open access
Holm, Jens Christian, Nowicka, Paulina, Farpour-Lambert, Nathalie J., O'Malley, Grace, Hassapidou, Maria, Weiss, Ram, Baker, Jennifer L.·2014·Obesity Facts

Abstract

With the American Medical Association's recent declaration that obesity is a serious disease [1], a critical consideration of the ethics of treating childhood obesity is especially timely. Although data suggest that the childhood obesity epidemic has stabilized in some countries [2], the levels remain too high; 18-49% of European children are overweight [3]. Consequently there is an immense and urgent need for the effective treatment of this complex disease. Unfortunately, the most recent Cochrane review concludes that, although family-based interventions can reduce excess weight in children and adolescents, long-term, effective and sustainable interventions for childhood obesity have yet to be identified [4]. Childhood obesity is a complex disease caused by a multitude of factors and it is associated with a wide range of co-morbidities. This complexity makes it challenging to design interventions and test the treatment approaches - particularly with regard to which outcome(s) should be used as the criteria for success. Most childhood obesity treatments occur in healthcare settings. As such, the randomized controlled trial (RCT), which is the ‘gold standard' of the medical/clinical research tradition, has been used to evaluate whether a given obesity treatment protocol is safe and effective. It is questionable however, if the RCT is the optimal study design to address this complex issue.Researchers investigating childhood obesity treatments face difficulties in deciding which outcomes best reflect the impact of treatment and, if a RCT is conducted, what type of treatment should it be randomized against. In light of the widespread childhood obesity epidemic, this paper will explore the ethical implications of these issues. Pediatric obesity research is conducted in a vulnerable group of patients and families. Many children who are obese suffer from significant psychological problems including anxiety, depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity as well as emotional and eating disorders [5,6]. Added to this, obesity carries a social stigma that adversely affects children as well as their families. There has been - and still is - considerable debate as to who bears the responsibility for the development of excess weight in the child and who bears the responsibility for alleviating the condition at the individual and the societal levels [7,8]. In recognition of these issues, there are discussions surrounding the ethics of community-based approaches of treating childhood obesity [9] and about mechanistic clinical studies aimed at understanding the pathophysiology of morbid obesity in children without a direct aim of reducing weight or the degree of obesity [10]. Less attention, however, has been given to the ethics of studying the individual treatment of the condition.The vast majority of childhood obesity therapy research is conducted at hospitals and their associated clinics or at universities. In this framework, treatment protocols are examined and approved by ethical review committees; thus it can be assumed that the basic premises of these studies are ethically acceptable. Nonetheless, investigators are obliged to ensure that their research fulfils the four basic principles of ethical research: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice [11]. In the context of childhood obesity research, this can be challenging. Children who are obese and their families are often desperate for treatment because existing programs can have long waiting lists or be out of reach due to cost, time, and transportation factors.Given these circumstances, investigators must carefully consider if their protocol provides a situation in which they can scientifically test their hypotheses and balance this with creating a situation in which children and families freely make the choice to enter the study (autonomy), that the child receives a net benefit through participation in a timely manner (beneficence and non-maleficence), and that the exclusion criteria for participation are reasonable (justice). With these principles in mind, it becomes apparent that the development of treatment protocols must recognize the need for effective treatment along with consideration for the well-being of the child and his or her parent(s). The majority of childhood obesity treatments use the reduction of weight, BMI (kg/m2), waist circumference, and/or body composition as the primary outcome. These studies usually evaluate the change over a period of a few months to a maximum of a couple of years. Although weight loss or stabilization represents a reasonable target, it may be overly simplistic since childhood obesity is a complex phenotype that is associated with multiple concurrent co-morbidities. Clinical studies suggest that almost 50% of children who are obese exhibit pre- or grade 1 or 2 hypertension [12,13], another 29% have dyslipidemia [14], 44% have more than 5% fat in their livers [15], and 74% exhibit more than 5% fat in t

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000365773

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2012.00090.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/ijo.2010.238 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1155/2012/281801 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1093/phe/phn007 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00752.x · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14915-X · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14915-x
  7. 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.184 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.10.042 · DOI
  9. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834e4a87 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1758-8111.2012.00038.x · DOI
  11. 10.4081/pr.2012.e11 · DOI
  12. 10.1056/NEJMoa031049 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm633 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1007/s00125-010-1693-0 · DOI
  15. 10.2223/JPED.2111 · doi:10.2223/jped.2111
  16. 10.1097/PEP.0b013e31825c14f8 · doi:10.1097/pep.0b013e31825c14f8
  17. 10.1056/NEJMoa1010112 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2228 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.09.015 · DOI
  20. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.721357 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1016/j.acap.2012.05.001 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/ejcn.2013.295 · DOI
  23. 10.1542/peds.2007-2329C · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1177/1359104509355020 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/ije/28.1.10 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 592

Metadata

Authors
Holm, J. C., Nowicka, P., Farpour-Lambert, N. J., O'Malley, G., Hassapidou, M., Weiss, R., & Baker, J. L.
Venue
Obesity Facts
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2014
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
274-281
ISSN
  • 1662-4025 (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4033
OpenAlex
W1580457945
Cited by
592
References
8
FWCI
45.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Ethics of Childhood Obesity Treatment - from the Childhood Obesity Task Force (COTF) of European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000365773
The paper
Holm, J. C., Nowicka, P., Farpour-Lambert, N. J., O'Malley, G., Hassapidou, M., Weiss, R., & Baker, J. L. (2014). The Ethics of Childhood Obesity Treatment - from the Childhood Obesity Task Force (COTF) of European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). Obesity Facts. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365773

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.