Author
Listed:
- Anna Newton-Clarke
- Miriam J Johnson
- Ugochinyere Nwulu
- Fliss EM Murtagh
- Alex F Bullock
Abstract
Objectives: Unintentional weight loss in older adults is common, with 15–20% of those aged >65 having clinically significant weight loss, associated with increased mortality and morbidity. People with socioeconomic disadvantage are more likely to be overweight but also to become frailer in older age. We explore if socioeconomic status impacts upon patients’ experience of unplanned weight loss. Methods: Qualitative secondary analysis of 23 semi-structured interviews with older adults from two prior studies i), those at risk of frailty ii) those with cancer. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted, using the lens of the Nutrition Equity Framework, on anonymised transcripts with formation of themes and subthemes, with relationships between themes investigated. Results: Mean age 73 years, range 65–87; 34% male, Index of Multiple Deprivation Quintiles IMD 1 (n=9), IMD 2 (n=4), IMD 3 (n=3), IMD 4 (n=6), IMD 5 (n=1). Three major themes were identified. 1. ‘Healthcare Systems’; interactions with either public health or individual healthcare systems influence patient experiences of weight loss. 2. ‘Personal Factors’; that influence a patient’s view of weight loss and the likelihood of weight loss prompting help-seeking behaviour 3. ‘Can I Change?’; patients’ perspectives of their ability to implement change. Factors in each of the themes were understood through motivating (reinforcing) and demotivating (balancing) factors. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that there is structural and individual inequity in individual views, identification, and clinical management of weight loss. The consequences of this disproportionately affect the most deprived, further confounding the inequalities that already exist.
Suggested Citation
Anna Newton-Clarke & Miriam J Johnson & Ugochinyere Nwulu & Fliss EM Murtagh & Alex F Bullock, 2025.
"Socioeconomic status and older adult’s experiences of weight loss: a qualitative secondary analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0321313
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321313
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0321313. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.