PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Cancer prevention in females with and without obesity: Does perceived and internalised weight bias determine cancer prevention behaviour?

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Bernard, M.* ; Löbner, M.* ; Lordick, F.* ; Mehnert-Theuerkauf, A.* ; Riedel-Heller, S.G.* ; Luck-Sikorski, C.

Cancer prevention in females with and without obesity: Does perceived and internalised weight bias determine cancer prevention behaviour?

BMC Womens Health 22:511 (2022)

Publ. Version/Full Text

Research data

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

BACKGROUND: Women with obesity are not only at higher risk of developing cancer such as gynaecological malignancies but are also less likely to attend cancer prevention screenings (CPS). In this study, we aimed to obtain a better database for Germany and to investigate whether women with obesity are less likely to undergo CPS compared to women without obesity. Moreover, we aimed to identify factors that determine CPS behaviour. METHODS: A quantitative cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted that assessed data of 1003 females in the general public with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; n = 500) and without obesity (BMI < 30 kg/m²; n = 503). We assessed participants' utilisation of cervical, breast, and colorectal CPS. Group differences were investigated by using Chi-Square tests, whereas influencing factors that might determine CPS behaviour were examined by multivariate logistic regression analyses. Therefore, logistic regression models for (a) the full sample and (b) the obese sample were conducted. Explanatory factors (i.e., cancer awareness, the internalisation of weight bias (WBIS) and perceived weight-based discrimination) were included. Confounding factors such as sociodemographic variables were included in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Women with obesity were less likely to undergo Pap smear (χ²(1) = 13.90, p < 0.001) and clinical breast examination (χ²(4) = 14.41, p < 0.01) compared to women without obesity. In contrast, the utilisation of all other CPS methods did not differ between women with and without obesity. Logistic regression analyses revealed neither an association between CPS behaviour and WBI nor perceived weight bias. Instead, previous cancer diagnoses and knowledge about CPS forms were found to reinforce CPS behaviour. CONCLUSION: Although data did not suggest that internalised or perceived weight bias deter women with obesity from undergoing CPS, the role of weight bias has not yet been conclusively clarified. Future studies should address potential methodological limitations and evaluate the effectiveness of most recently established cancer prevention programs and in particular how they affect CPS behaviour in women with obesity.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

2.742

0.000