IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i8p1401-1413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physician evaluation of obesity in health surveys: "who are you calling fat?"

Author

Listed:
  • Ferraro, Kenneth F.
  • Holland, Kimberlee B.

Abstract

Previous research on status generalization suggests that physicians may use non-medical factors in their evaluation, interpretation, and treatment of persons presenting for care. This study compares physicians' evaluations of obesity with physical measurements of body stature and fat collected from a large national health examination survey. While the anthropometric measures are strong predictors of physician evaluations of obesity, between 13% and 19% of the respondents were classified in ways that could not be predicted from the anthropometric measures. Moreover, personal and status characteristics were related to physicians' evaluations of obesity. Women, especially White and taller women, were more likely to be evaluated as obese than would be predicted from the anthropometric measures--African American women were less likely than their White counterparts to be so classified. Physicians' evaluation of obesity was least consistent with measured obesity for older respondents. Indeed among men, age was the most important status characteristic shaping physician evaluations: older men were more likely to be evaluated as obese. The findings suggest that the cluster of status characteristics is important to physicians during medical evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferraro, Kenneth F. & Holland, Kimberlee B., 2002. "Physician evaluation of obesity in health surveys: "who are you calling fat?"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 1401-1413, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:8:p:1401-1413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00272-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:8:p:1401-1413. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.