The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public Support for Weight-Related Antidiscrimination Laws and Policies
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Weight-related discrimination is prevalent and associated with health impairments for those who are targeted, which underscores the need of antidiscrimination legislation. This study is the first to examine public support of weight-related antidiscrimination laws or policies in Germany, compared to the US and Iceland. Methods: In a representative German population sample (N = 2,513), public support for general and employment-specific weight-related antidiscrimination policies, weight-based victimization, and weight bias internalization were measured through established self-report questionnaires. Results: Half of the German population sample agreed with antidiscrimination policies. General antidiscrimination laws received lower support than employment-specific laws. Support for policies considering obesity a physical disability was greatest in Germany, whereas support for employment-specific antidiscrimination laws was lower in Germany than in the US and Iceland. Total support for weight-related antidiscrimination policies was significantly predicted by lower age, female gender, obese weight status, residence in West Germany, church membership, and readiness to vote in elections. Conclusion: German support for weight-related antidiscrimination policies is moderate. Increasing awareness about weight-related discrimination and laws prohibiting this behavior may help to promote policy acceptance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination.
“However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination75,76.”
From Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity (2020) · cites this paper as [76]
The Results report 51.1% support for antidiscrimination policies in Germany, and the Introduction reports moderate to strong support for proposed laws in the US and high support for workplace protections in Iceland. The paper does not report Australian public support, so it does not support the full geographic scope of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Gorber, S. C., Tremblay, M., Moher, D., & Gorber, B. (2007) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1467-789x.2007.00347.x · Cited by 1,945
Long-term weight loss maintenance
Wing, R. R., & Phelan, S. (2005) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/82.1.222s · Cited by 1,941
Obesity Metaphors: How Beliefs about the Causes of Obesity Affect Support for Public Policy
BARRY, C. L., BRESCOLL, V. L., BROWNELL, K. D., & SCHLESINGER, M. (2009) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x · Cited by 278
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/oby.2008.35 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/ijo.2015.165 · DOI
- 10.1038/ijo.2008.22 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/oby.2008.636 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.008 · DOI
- 10.1159/000276992 · DOI
- 10.1159/000345931 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2009.131 · DOI
- 10.1002/oby.21052 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/hea0000107 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0070048 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1468-0009.12162 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/oby.2010.126 · DOI
- 10.1038/ijo.2010.194 · DOI
- 10.1002/oby.20750 · DOI
- 10.1215/03616878-30-5-923 · DOI
- 10.1038/ijo.2016.49 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2008.448 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0086303 · DOI
- 10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.882 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00103-012-1656-3 · DOI
- 10.1159/000277067 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10672-009-9107-5 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity
Rubino, F., Puhl, R. M., Cummings, D. E., Eckel, R. H., Ryan, D. H., Mechanick, J. I., Nadglowski, J., Ramos Salas, X., Schauer, P. R., Twenefour, D., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0803-x · Cited by 1,152
“However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination 75, 76 .”
BackgroundObesity Stigma: Causes, Consequences, and Potential Solutions
Westbury, S., Oyebode, O., van Rens, T., & Barber, T. M. (2023) · Current Obesity Reports · doi:10.1007/s13679-023-00495-3 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Hilbert, A., Hübner, C., Schmutzer, G., Danielsdottir, S., Brähler, E., & Puhl, R.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Leipzig (DE)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Venue
- Obesity Facts
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-111
- ISSN
- 1662-4025 (ISSN-L)
- 1662-4033
- PMC
- PMC5644911
- OpenAlex
- W2604592589
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Obesity Facts (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- anti-discrimination law, public support, employment discrimination, weight bias internalization, policy acceptance, Germany, cross-national comparison
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Body Weight, Employment, Female, Germany, Humans, Iceland, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Prejudice, Public Opinion, Public Policy, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States
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
