How to reduce the adverse effects of weight stigma on the quality of life: a preferred reported items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)

Abstract

Introduction:

Obesity, affecting 38% of adults globally, carries economic burdens and health risks like cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Weight-loss programs often face challenges due to stigma and poor body image, impacting individuals’ quality of life. Research on interventions targeting weight stigma is lacking, emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches addressing psychological and behavioral aspects for effective care.

Methods:

A systematic literature review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched into three databases (PubMed, APA PsycArticles/PsycInfo, and Web of Science) articles published between 1975 and 2024. Studies were eligible if they involved people living with overweight or obesity who participate in a psychological program targeting, or not, weight stigma and if at least one outcome was related to weight stigma.

Results:

We selected 24 studies published between 2009 and 2022, the majority concerning English-speaking countries. Reduction in weight stigma was observed in 23/24 studies, particularly through cognitive-behavioral techniques (18/24 studies), while others studies emphasized individual predispositions and the need for longer, and denser interventions.

Conclusion:

Three relevant characteristics emerged from the studies analysed: content, duration and tools. Cognitive-behavioral techniques were central, aiding participants in managing their condition and coping with stigma. Interventions reducing Weight Bias Internalization (WBI) led to improved psychosocial determinants, yet the mechanisms remain unclear. Future research should address intervention duration, participant involvement, and the association between WBI and psychosocial factors to enhance outcomes and understanding.

Introduction

Obesity is a chronic, progressive condition characterized by a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m² and defined by an abnormal or excessive accumulation of body fat (Bray et al., 2017). Affecting approximately 38% of the world’s adult population in 2020, obesity is projected to concern over half the global population (51%) by 2035 (World Obesity Federation, 2023). Beyond its economic impact—estimated at nearly US$2 billion in 2020 and set to the double by 2035—obesity significantly compromises individual health and productivity. It is a risk factor for chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers (The GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators, 2017). Thus, obesity is a major public health issue. Traditional obesity treatments focus on significant weight loss through intensive behavioral intervention targeting diet and physical activity (Lasikiewicz et al., 2014). While these programs can yield short-term benefits, they are often unsustainable, with patients dropping out of treatment and regaining weight within the first years post-treatment (Jensen et al., 2014; Wadden et al., 2012). Increasing awareness of obesity’s etiology has highlighted the role of psychosocial factors in weight management, such as body image, self-esteem, stress (MacLean et al., 2018; Wing and Phelan, 2005). For instance, poor body image and negative talk self-talk can hinder weight loss efforts (Striegel-Moore et al., 2001). Among the psychosocial factors, weight stigma has emerged as a critical but underexplored dimension influencing both psychological and physical health outcomes.

Weight stigma refers to negative societal attitudes and stereotypes about individuals with obesity (Pont et al., 2017; Puhl and Brownell, 2001; Puhl, 2011; Puhl and Heuer, 2009), such as being lazy and lacking willpower (Pearl, 2018). Such stigmatization contributes to a harmful stress, overeating, and shame, as described in cyclic obesity/weight-based stigma (COBWEBS) model (Tomiyama, 2014). Chronic exposure to stigmatizing environments triggers psychological and behavioral responses, including heightened cortisol levels, disordered eating behaviors, and reduced motivation for salutogenic behaviors (Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004; Muennig, 2008; Puhl and Brownell, 2006). Over time individuals internalize these stereotypes, applying to themselves, which exacerbates emotional distress. Such experiences trigger stereotype threat effect (Steele and Aronson, 1995), creating fear of confirming weight-based stereotypes and hindering salutogenic behaviors like physical activity and dietary changes (Brochu and Dovidio, 2014; Schvey et al., 2011; Seacat and Mickelson, 2009). This internalization is a key factor affecting mental and physical health (Pearl and Puhl, 2018).

Despite its widespread impact, weight stigma remains under-addressed in obesity management programs. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews evaluating intervention specifically designed to reduce weight stigma and improve quality of life for individuals with obesity. This present review aims to fill this gap by examining the psychological (e.g., self-esteem, body image) and behavioral (e.g., salutogenic practices) benefits of interventions targeting weight stigma, but also to provide an update on current methodologies and strategies for addressing weight stigma. By comparing and evaluating different intervention approaches, this paper seeks to contribute to the development of holistic, stigma-sensitive approaches to obesity care, ultimately improving the quality of life and health outcomes for individuals living with obesity.

Materials and methods

Information sources and research process

In order to identify these psychological and behavioral benefits, we conducted a literature review by searching three academic databases (PubMed, APA PsycArticles/PsycInfo, and Web of Science) for articles published between 1975 and January 2024. Search terms covered the following three topics: (1) stigmatization (psychosocial terms), (2) obesity (population terms), and (3) therapy (intervention terms).

The keyword search was based on the MEDLINE algorithm. We defined the following list of keywords: (weight stigma or prejudice or social discrimination) AND (obesity or overweight or obese) AND (treatment or intervention or therapy). Then we applied this algorithm to PubMed, APA PsycArticles/PsycInfo, and Web of Science. We also conducted free searches consisting of additional manual searches of the first pages of results from the generic web search engine Google Scholar. We included articles considered to be of interest by examining references cited in the included studies. Then we merged these searches and included them in a library we created in Zotero 5.0.95.1. We screened eligible criteria (inclusion and exclusion), read titles and abstracts in order to deleted duplicates. We assessed whether all inclusion criteria had been met and whether the abstracts presented any exclusion criteria. Abstracts that did not meet all these criteria were excluded from the final selection of articles.

Research question and scope

To structure the research question comprehensively, PICOS framework was applied. The population focused on adults experiencing weight stigma in social or healthcare settings. Interventions included psychological and behavioral programs aimed at addressing weight stigma or its psychological effects. Comparators included standard care, alternative psychological interventions, or no treatment, allowing for evaluation of intervention-specific effects. Outcomes assessed included reductions in weight stigma, improvement in quality of life and body image, and secondary effects such as adoption of salutogenic behaviors and reduced depressive symptoms. Study designs ranged from randomized controlled trials to quasi-experimental and observational studies, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods for a comprehensive analysis.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

• - studies in which outcomes (e.g., psychosocial determinant, self-efficacy, weight stigma) were clearly defined

• - studies in which the independent variable (i.e., populations recognized as targets of weight stigmatization) was present in the context of an intervention program

• - studies in which the population was defined by the authors as living with overweight or obesity

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

• - studies not written in English

• - studies that are not journal articles (e.g., books, chapters, editorial reviews, literature reviews, etc.)

• - studies in which the dependent variable did not concern quality of life, well-being, or weight stigma

• - studies without an interventional design testing the reduction of stigmatization’s adverse effects

• - studies outside the context of a psychological intervention (e.g., medication, law, etc.)

• - studies of populations not defined by the authors as living with overweight or obesity

• - studies concerning the evaluation of a measurement tool (e.g., validation of a test or questionnaire).

Data collection process

The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021), which ensures the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. The articles were selected by the first author (GR), and this selection was then checked independently by three coauthors (CE, MA, VP). Any uncertainty or disagreement between evaluators was resolved by discussion and consensus among the authors (GR, VP, MA, CE). The first author (GR) extracted the following information: first authors, year of publication, journal, study country, study population, study population size, method, data collection, dependent variables, and summary of results.

Assessing the risk of bias

The first author (GR) independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies included using the modified version of the Downs and Black checklist for assessing randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials (Downs and Black, 1998). Downs and Black score ranges were given to corresponding quality levels as previously reported (Hooper et al., 2008): excellent (26–28); good (20–25); fair (15–19); and poor (< 14).

Results

Selection of the studies

The study procedure is illustrated in Figure 1. The free search yielded 12 articles. Keyword searching with the MEDLINE algorithm yielded 468 results in PubMed, 650 results in APA PsychArticles/Info, and 328 results in Web of Science. After removing duplicates (325), 1,046 articles were removed based on the title or abstract because they did not meet criteria for inclusion. Then, after reading and analyzing the 87 articles, we (GR, VP, CE, MA) included 24 articles based on the eligibility criteria.

Figure 1

Characteristics of the studies

The characteristics of the studies are set out in Table 1. All studies selected were published between 2009 and 2022. Twenty articles concerned English-speaking countries (92% of which were from the United States), three articles concerned Europe, and one article concerned Brazil. All studies included a population living with overweight or obesity. The mean BMI was always over 30 kg/m², with the exception of the study by Wallin et al. (2018), whose mean BMI was 29.9 kg/m². Participants were predominantly women over the age of 18. Quality of life dimensions assessed overall obesity-related quality of life, physical, and psychological factors.

Methodologies

Of the 24 studies, 23 were interventional, involving a behavioral weight-loss (BWL) program, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or a combination of these two types of programs, with pretreatment and posttreatment analyses and follow-up. All these studies were longitudinal and used quantitative measures. Only one study, based on a content analysis of interviews with patients who had taken part in an interventional study, was qualitative. Ten of the 24 studies used an intervention that did not directly target the adverse effects of weight stigma but explored the influence of the intervention on weight stigma outcomes. Eight of the 24 studies proposed an intervention that directly targeted the adverse effects of weight stigma and investigated its effect on quality of life. Finally, the remaining six studies targeted potential mediators of the deleterious effect of weight stigma on quality of life.

Rigor and quality of the studies

A summary of the quality scores is displayed in Table 1. The mean quality score was 16.5. The quality assessment of the 24 studies highlights that four of them were good quality, fourteen were fair quality and six were low quality. The scores were very low in external validity, internal validity—confounding and statistical power. This indicates that the studies had the insufficient statistical power to detect important effects and none of the findings could be generalized to older population. Serious risk bias can be highlighted such as small samples, majority of one gender, no comparison or control group.

Outcomes

The results of the studies included in the review are set out in Table 2. Most studies (92%) observed the effect of a group intervention or self-help book or both on quality of life, while 54% looked at the maintenance of beneficial effects after the end of the intervention. The most frequently assessed psychosocial factors were weight bias internalization (WBI) (96%), depressive symptoms (50%), and body image concerns (41%). In this study, we looked at the effects of interventions on these outcomes.

Presentation of results

All the results of this literature review are presented in the same way: a brief description of the studies’ objectives, followed by a description of the specific features of the proposed programs and a description of the effects observed on weight stigma. We have reported all the results: those indicating that remediation of the deleterious effects of stigmatization contributes to a better quality of life and those refuting this hypothesis.

Interventions directly focused on weight stigma

Fourteen of the 24 studies proposed an intervention that directly targeted obesity stigma or self-stigma (Carels et al., 2014; Davies et al., 2021; Forbes et al., 2020; Levin et al., 2018; Lillis et al., 2009; Myre et al., 2020; Olson et al., 2018; Palmeira et al., 2017, 2019; Pearl et al., 2018, 2020a,b; Potts et al., 2022; Scagliusi et al., 2020). Among these studies the duration was different and short-term interventions and long-term interventions were identified.

Firstly, interventions lasting less than 4 weeks were designated as short-term and were analyzed. One study proposed a one-day intervention (Lillis et al., 2009), resulting in a marked decrease in stereotype levels and psychological distress and an increased level of quality of life. Moreover, post hoc analyses indicated that the benefits were not due to weight loss but rather to the content of the intervention. Forbes et al. (2020) underlined the maintenance of the beneficial effects of an intensive two-day program, notably through a reduction in the level of stereotype internalization and an increase in the level of self-compassion. These improvements were linked to improvements in other determinants, such as body image satisfaction and self-efficacy related to eating. Participants lost weight, and the authors speculate that this was due to the implementation of healthier behaviors; however, these behaviors were not evaluated. Finally, Myre et al. (2020), who proposed an online implicit retraining task, highlighted the difficulty of deconstructing automatic associations linked to obesity (i.e., associating obesity with a lack of physical activity). After 4 weeks of implicit retraining, the internalization level of the experimental group did not decrease. Moreover, the difference in WBI levels between the control and experimental groups is explained by an initial difference and not by an effect of the intervention.

Six Interventions lasted more than 4 weeks and were then classified as long-term and analyzed. Two of these six interventions offered participants a guided self-help (GSH) book that is based on acceptance and commitment therapy (i.e., The Diet Trap) combined with telephone coaching (Levin et al., 2018; Potts et al., 2022). The GSH book helped to reduce the level of WBI. Behaviorally, participants developed better weight-control strategies. It seems that telephone coaching contributed to a better assimilation of the skills acquired with the GSH book (Levin et al., 2018). Coaching not only kept participants motivated but also provided them with regular feedback on the GSH book (Potts et al., 2022). As a result, they better understood how to apply the skills they had acquired to everyday situations.

The other four studies evaluated the benefits of a program targeting WBI. The New Perspective (NP) program (Carels et al., 2014) teaches participants to become aware of and challenge internalized weight biases. This method was shown to reduce participants’ negative self-evaluation, encouraging greater acceptance of their body image. In addition, participants felt more able to manage their emotions when faced with difficult situations and developed healthy habits in their relationships to food and physical activity. Nevertheless, 6 months after the end of the NP program, the participants regained almost as much weight as they had lost, suggesting that the acquired skills are less useful for maintaining a stable weight. In the other three studies, the benefits of the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program (Pearl et al., 2018, 2020a,b) were analyzed. In a first pilot study, Pearl et al. (2018) observed a decrease in the level of WBI and an increase in self-efficacy related to eating. Participants’ weight remained stable during the intervention, suggesting that the benefits were indeed due to the program and not to weight loss. However, a lack of follow-up after the intervention meant that it was not possible to determine whether the beneficial effects persisted over time. Pearl et al. (2020a), therefore, proposed a longer intervention (i.e., 12 weeks versus 8 weeks in the pilot study). One group followed a conventional BWL program, while another group followed the same program in combination with Weight BIAS (BWL + BIAS). Both programs reduced the level of WBI, but the reduction was greater with the combined program. More precisely, when we analyzed the subscales of the tool used (i.e., Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire), the combined group had a lower score in terms of self-devaluation, which is the tendency to denigrate oneself. Intragroup analyses also revealed significant changes, including greater self-efficacy in weight and lifestyle management, fewer depressive symptoms, and greater body appreciation. These beneficial effects were maintained 6 months after the end of the program (Pearl et al., 2020b). No significant intergroup differences were reported, meaning that overall, both groups benefited equally from their respective programs. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of action appear to differ between the two groups. According to the qualitative analysis (Pearl et al., 2020b), participants in the BWL + BIAS group reported more self-appreciation and self-esteem and implemented more coping strategies in the face of stigmatizing contexts, whereas participants in the BWL group reported feeling less lonely and more socially supported. These factors may all contribute to improved quality of life and reduced WBI. In addition, the authors explained that the lack of difference between the groups was due to an insufficient dose of the intervention targeting obesity stigma. Thus, it would be relevant to propose a longer and denser intervention addressing these issues to detect any specific effects of an intervention of this kind.

Interventions indirectly addressing weight stigma

Six of the 24 studies (Carels et al., 2014; Davies et al., 2021; Olson et al., 2018; Palmeira et al., 2017, 2019; Scagliusi et al., 2020) focused on determinants mediating the adverse consequences of obesity stigma. Five of the six studies were quantitative, and one was qualitative (Scagliusi et al., 2020).

Body preoccupation has emerged as a relevant determinant. Three of the six studies focused on the body, more specifically on body image (Olson et al., 2018), body functionality (Davies et al., 2021), and body appreciation (Scagliusi et al., 2020). The Body Project program (Olson et al., 2018) criticizes the unrealistic expectations raised by the ideals of beauty conveyed by Western media and deconstructs the myths of this ideal. Although the participants increased appreciation of their bodies, the level of WBI did not significantly decrease in the short-term intervention (i.e., 1 hour per week for 4 weeks). However, Olson et al. (2018) emphasized that improved body image and satisfaction could act as a protective factor against the adverse effects of weight stigmatization. They also added that the duration of the intervention was too short to see a beneficial effect on the WBI. The other study proposed the Expand Your Horizon program, which focuses on the appreciation of body functionalities (Davies et al., 2021). Through writing exercises, participants learned to be grateful for what their body enables them to do in functional terms (e.g., stand up, walk, digest, etc.). The level of internalization of weight bias decreased significantly between the beginning and end of the program. In addition, this new appreciation of their bodies also helped to reduce the stress associated with healthcare and strengthen their ability to manage their emotions. As a result, participants felt better able to defend their needs. The authors stressed that this was a short-term study, so it is not possible to know whether the benefits observed were sustained over time. The study by Scagliusi et al. (2020) proposed a qualitative analysis examining body appreciation and responses to weight stigma following the Health at Every Size (HAES) program. Participants appreciated the intensive version of the HAES program (I-HAES) because it enabled them to deconstruct social norms of beauty and to encourage inner changes. In addition, they reported greater self-acceptance and willingly engaged in previously avoided situations (e.g., gym, public transport, intimate relationships, etc.). The participants applied the skills learned during the intervention to everyday situations (e.g., by challenging themselves in sport). In the I-HAES group, the participants gave less importance and credibility to people who expressed negative stereotypes, enabling them to be less vulnerable in these situations. In addition, they acquired the ability to deconstruct normative discourse coming from others and to choose this norm as being unsuitable. The participants were no longer afraid of the subject of food, thus encouraging the development of healthy behaviors and stress-free eating. Overall, the participants who took part in the I-HAES program gave a more positive meaning to their bodies and felt able to fight weight stigma.

Maladaptative coping has also emerged as a relevant determinant. The Transform Your Life (TYL) program (Carels et al., 2014) focused on developing and sustaining salutogenic habits, disengaging from nonhealthy behaviors, and modifying the participants’ environments. More specifically, the aim was to reduce obesogenic cues and promote cues that would maintain motivation to achieve the goals they had set. Once an environment has been reorganized to encourage an automatic response to the pursuit of a goal (i.e., weight loss), fewer self-regulatory resources (self-monitoring) are required to achieve this goal. In addition, the participants learned to identify the steps leading to salutogenic behaviors (e.g., snacking) and then to stop these behaviors. This process led to a reduction in the level of internalization of weight bias and an improvement in body image. In contrast to the participants of the NP program discussed above, participants in the TYL group continued to lose weight during the 6 months following the end of the program. Carels et al. (2014) pointed out that the support, accountability, and weekly attention provided by the competent staff delivering the interventions may have been factors in their success.

The KG-Free intervention (Palmeira et al., 2017, 2019) specifically targets weight-related avoidance experiences (WREA), which refer to the refusal to stay in touch with difficult weight- and eating-related internal experiences (e.g., craving, weight self-stigma) (Lillis et al., 2009). This intervention integrates the development of mindfulness skills, self-compassion, acceptance, and commitment. In the study, the KG-Free intervention reduced the level of WBI and increased the participants’ quality of life in relation to obesity. According to the mediation model tested, this improvement was due to a reduction in the level of self-stigmatization (Palmeira et al., 2019). However, this reduction was itself mediated by the influence of the intervention on the WREA, the feelings of shame and self-criticism, and the capacity for mindfulness and self-compassion acquired during the program. In terms of behavior, the participants reported taking part in physical activity more often and tended not to devalue themselves and to avoid uncomfortable or difficult situations less.

Indirect effects of interventions on weight stigma outcomes

Ten of the 24 studies investigated the effect of an intervention that did not specifically target the deleterious effects of weight stigma (Berman et al., 2016, 2022; Carels et al., 2009, 2010, 2017, 2019; Haley et al., 2022; Levin et al., 2021; Mensinger et al., 2016; Wallin et al., 2018). More specifically, in these studies, research did not focus on weight stigma as the primary outcome. Of these ten studies, six primarily assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of their intervention and explored its effects on the level of weight-related stigma. Four of these studies examined the reduction of weight self-stigma as a moderator of the effects of their intervention.

Four of these studies offered their participants a self-help manual (Carels et al., 2009, 2017, 2019; Wallin et al., 2018). Among these four, two studies incorporated CBT techniques such as acceptance commitment therapy (ACT), which reduced the participants’ level of self-stigmatization (Carels et al., 2019; Wallin et al., 2018). However, this improvement seems to be linked to individual predispositions. Indeed, in Carels et al.’s (2009, 2017, 2019) work, the protocols used proceeded by phase. Patients had to achieve a weight-loss goal, and depending on whether they succeeded or failed, they were guided differently. If weight loss was achieved, patients continued with a self-help booklet; otherwise, group sessions were prescribed. Patients who achieved their weight-loss goal in the first phase were those who benefited most from the booklets. The other two studies (Carels et al., 2009, 2017) offered their participants a more pragmatic booklet that included tools such as calorie counting, a physical activity report, and a diet. First, Carels et al. (2009) analysed the effect on implicit and explicit weight bias. The level of explicit bias remained stable between the start and end of the program. When participants attributed more positive traits to people living with obesity (e.g., sporty, intelligent, dynamic), weight loss seemed to be greater, as did calorie monitoring. They observed no effect on implicit bias. Weight bias influences behavior and the success of the program, but the mechanisms involved are not clearly known. In another study, Carels et al. (2019) identified two individual success factors for weight loss: health literacy and calorie monitoring. Participants with higher health literacy were those who benefited most from the proposed program. The authors did not find any effect of the internalization of weight stigma on weight loss or changes in behavior.

Three of the ten offered group sessions (Carels et al., 2010; Haley et al., 2022; Levin et al., 2021). Among them, one study examined the relationship between explicit and implicit bias and the internalization of stereotypes (Carels et al., 2010). Participants followed two different programs, one focusing on lifestyle change and the other on environmental modification (i.e., reducing obesogenic cues). WBI did not seem to be associated with the participants’ level of implicit bias. Both groups saw their level of WBI decrease, and this decrease was linked to a better evaluation of body appearance. In short, after following these programs, participants attributed more positive traits to people with obesity and were less likely to internalize weight bias. However, it is important to note that the authors did not differentiate between the results of the two groups. The other two studies proposed group sessions integrating workshops centered on acceptance and commitment therapy (Levin et al., 2021) and self-compassion (Haley et al., 2022). Levin et al. (2021) offered participants an online ACT coupled with telephone coaching. This program reduced the level of IWS, reduced maladaptive behavior, and encouraged salutogenic behavior. In their pilot study, Haley et al. (2022) sought to determine whether a program to improve general self-compassion could have an effect on WBI. This program focused on applying self-compassion skills to different areas of life. They did not observe any effect on WBI. However, participants had a better appreciation of their bodies and better control over their diet following the program.

The remaining three of the ten studies combined provision of a self-help manual and group sessions (Berman et al., 2016, 2022; Mensinger et al., 2016). Berman et al. (2016, 2022) proposed the “Accept Yourself!” program, which aimed to improve physical health without necessarily prioritizing weight loss. A significant interaction indicated that participants improved their overall quality of life, decreased their weight, and WBI scores during the program. However, these effects were not maintained 1 year after the end of the program. Mensinger et al. (2016) compared a weight-neutral HUGS program (i.e., Health-focused, Understanding lifestyle, Group supported, and Self-esteem building) with a conventional weight-loss LEARN program (i.e., Lifestyle, Exercise, Attitudes, Relationships, and Nutrition). The weight-neutral program shifted the focus away from the weight-loss goal and focused more on well-being and self-care regardless of fitness (Tylka et al., 2014). Both groups experienced a decrease in the level of WBI during the program and maintained 24 months later. Participants with lower levels of WBI appear to have benefited the most from the neutral program, while those with higher levels of WBI benefited the least, regardless of the course followed. However, the frequency of use of the booklet and, more generally, of the skills acquired was not reported in this study.

Discussion

The objective of this review, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, was first to identify the various forms of intervention that address the consequences of weight stigma on obesity management. Then, we sought to identify the psychological (e.g., self-esteem, body image, etc.) and behavioral benefits (e.g., development of healthy behaviors). Some interventions focused more on the participants’ environments and skills, while others more specifically addressed the issue of weight stigma with their participants.

The studies included in this review were selected based on their methodological robustness, diversity of approaches, and focus on psychosocial determinants such as WBI, body image, or self-esteem. All studies employed evidence-based frameworks like CBT, ACT, or self-compassion, demonstrating their alignment with review’s objectives. They explicitly addressed weight stigma or its psychological correlates, such as emotional regulation, ensuring direct applicability to understanding broader impact of weight stigma on obesity management. The diversity of formats, ranging from self-help manuals to group-based programs, provided valuable insights into the advantages and limitations of various intervention types.

Weight stigma affects outcomes in obesity management through several mechanisms. It exacerbates stress, emotional distress, often leading to maladaptative behaviors such emotional eating or avoidance of healthcare. Studies included in this review demonstrated that intervention focusing solely on reducing weight stigma often achieved limited long-term improvement in quality of life. This suggests that weight stigma should be considered within a broader framework, alongside factors like body image, coping strategies and self-esteem, which influence individuals’ perception of and vulnerability to weight stigma. Thus, interventions incorporated these additional factors observed more robust and sustained effects. Secondly, the duration of the intervention was identified as an important characteristic. Longer-term interventions led to greater benefits, which were generally maintained after the end of the intervention. Several factors may explain this effect. Firstly, the participants were able to get together on a regular basis, thus creating a bond and group cohesion. Secondly, the longer duration would have enabled participants to better understand and assimilate the content of the intervention, notably through the feedback provided by the researchers. In addition, some studies included coaching during the intervention, helping to keep participants motivated and involved. Finally, the tools used were also a relevant feature that emerged from the interventions analyzed. Two formats were favoured, self-help manuals or group sessions, and some studies combined the two. Self-help manuals provided participants with a permanent source of support. These manuals could incorporate CBT techniques or advice on how to modify one’s environment and promote salutogenic behaviors. Group sessions also incorporated CBT techniques, and had the advantage of maintaining group cohesion and thus fostering social bonding.

All the studies in this review incorporated CBT and psychoeducational techniques to help participants better manage their condition navigate challenging situations. Many intervention included a self-help manual, providing practical tools for managing obesity. These manuals proved effective in improving body image, regulating food-related emotions, and reducing WBI. However, their success depends on participants’ ability to fully understand and utilize the content. Thus, greater health literacy is a key factor in ensuring the success of self-help manuals (Carels et al., 2017).

This review identified WBI as a common variable across nearly all these studies, playing a pivotal role in shaping patients’ perceptions of and responses to weight stigma. Intervention that reduced WBI led to improvement in body image, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and other psychosocial determinants (Pearl et al., 2020a,b). However, addressing WBI aline is insufficient to mitigate its harmful effects fully. It is equally important to target related factors, particularly self-stigmatization variables (e.g., body image, self-esteem, feelings of shame, etc.). For instance, emphasizing body functionality rather than appearance has been shown helping to reduce healthcare-related stress and WBI levels (Davies et al., 2021). While these studies establish a link between WBI and these determinants, the underlying processes remain unclear. Only three studies (Palmeira et al., 2017, 2019; Potts et al., 2022) investigate the mechanisms mediating the reduction in internalized weight bias. Findings suggest that a decrease in WBI does not directly does not directly improve quality of life but acts through other variables (e.g., self-deprecation) (Palmeira et al., 2019).

Although these studies all tend to confirm the benefits of an intervention on the various psychosocial determinants, they have several limitations. The most common limitation is the small sample size and homogeneity (i.e., predominantly Caucasian women). In addition, most of these studies highlight the benefits of their interventions, but only three of them analyse the processes by which these changes take place (Palmeira et al., 2017, 2019; Potts et al., 2022). The qualitative dimension is also little explored, even though it could provide information on participants’ experiences and perceptions of the intervention. From a methodological perspective, potential biases inherent to the PRISMA review process must also be acknowledged. The search strategy was limited to three major databases (PubMed, APA PsycArticles/PsycInfo, and Web of Science), which may have excluded relevant studies indexed in other sources. Only English-language, peer-reviewed articles were included, potentially omitting significant non-English research and grey literature. Moreover, the inclusion criteria focused on studies published between 1975 and 2024, which might have excluded older findings.

In a society where stereotypes of obesity can be pervasive, it is vital to put in place measures aimed at strengthening the resources of people living with obesity. It seems necessary and important to offer a comprehensive program incorporating both remedial techniques derived from psychology (e.g., ACT, self-compassion, self-affirmation) and more pragmatic exercises such as a diet diary. In addition, the environment in which the program takes place must be supportive and provide feedback to participants in order to maintain their motivation and encourage their progress (Levin et al., 2018; Potts et al., 2022). It is also important for patients themselves to be involved in making changes to their environment and lifestyle (Carels et al., 2014) in order to derive lasting benefits over time. Although short-term interventions can lead to an improvement in quality of life, this improvement is not always maintained and is not of great magnitude (Forbes et al., 2020; Lillis et al., 2009). Thus, the duration of the intervention is, an important variable to consider, as it is necessary to have sufficient time to assimilate the content of a program and learn how to apply it in other areas.

Future research will, therefore, have to identify the nature of the link between the internalization of weight bias and the psychosocial determinants contributing to improved quality of life. We have identified at least three priority focus areas for research.

Research focus 1: to establish the relationship between reduced internalization of weight bias and improved quality of life

We assume that the various stigmatizing contexts can have deleterious effects on the quality of life of people suffering from obesity. These contexts contribute to aggravating the condition because individuals can find themselves powerless and without solutions. Remedying the deleterious effects of weight stigma could, as a consequence, have a positive effect on the quality of life of this population. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) seems to be a relevant approach because it focuses on identifying the needs and skills of the individual. It places patients at the heart of care and works with them to develop their health skills so that they can live better with their chronic illness. This type of program does not focus directly on the usual concerns such as weight loss and prescribing a specific diet but rather on developing and strengthening useful healthcare resources. To our knowledge, no TPE program integrates psychosocial aspects such as weight stigma. We would hope that participation in such a program would improve quality of life and empowerment (i.e., a sense of self-efficacy).

This hypothesis could be tested with a population of people with obesity integrated into a care pathway in a hospital center using two methods: (1) a standard therapeutic education program on obesity, the content of which focuses on a better understanding of this chronic disease; and (2) a therapeutic education program on obesity enhanced by workshops and tools related to weight stigma.

Research focus 2: examining change processes by analyzing the mediating effects of psychosocial factors on the internalization of weight bias

The second research axis will focus on identifying the psychosocial factors responsible for change and the benefits perceived by patients. We assume that working solely on stigma issues is not enough to improve quality of life. Patients’ vulnerability to stigmatizing contexts may be influenced by other factors such as self-esteem, body image, or coping strategies. For example, greater acceptance of one’s own body size, combined with improved self-esteem, may lead individuals to be less preoccupied with the gaze and judgment of others (Scagliusi et al., 2020). These psychosocial factors could, therefore, be potential mediators of perceived benefits and should be tested through statistical mediation analyses. We will try to identify the processes by which reducing the level of internalization of weight bias can improve the quality of life of individuals living with obesity.

Research focus 3: qualitative analysis of the experience and perceived benefits of following a program focusing on weight stigma

Finally, in this last line of research, it will be necessary to understand how patients benefit from the intervention and to what extent they apply the skills they have acquired to everyday situations. Quantitative measures provide a better understanding of how psychosocial factors influence each other but do not capture the entire process of change. In order to explore this area, it will be necessary to carry out recorded interviews with patients taking part in TPE programs. Analysis of the content of these interviews will help to flesh out the quantitative results obtained but also to better understand the possibility of a lack of benefits.

Conclusion

The present review underscores the importance of tailored interventions to address the multifaceted aspects of weight stigma and its impact on individuals’ well-being. Although weight stigma management appears to be linked to the quality of life of people with obesity, the mechanisms of action involved remain unclear. Thus, it is necessary to study the involvement of psychosocial factors (e.g., self-esteem, body image, etc.) in this relationship.

References

• 1

  BermanM. I.MortonS. N.HegelM. T. (2016). Uncontrolled pilot study of an acceptance and commitment therapy and health at every size intervention for obese, depressed women: accept yourself!Psychotherapy53, 462–467. doi: 10.1037/pst0000083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BermanM. I.ParkJ.KragenbrinkM. E.HegelM. T. (2022). Accept yourself! A pilot randomized controlled trial of a self-acceptance-based treatment for large-bodied women with depression. Behav. Ther.53, 913–926. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2022.03.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BrayG. A.KimK. K.WildingJ. P. H.World Obesity Federation (2017). Obesity: a chronic relapsing progressive disease process. A position statement of the world obesity federation. Obes. Rev.18, 715–723. doi: 10.1111/obr.12551

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BrochuP. M.DovidioJ. F. (2014). Would you like fries (380 calories) with that? Menu labeling mitigates the impact of weight-based stereotype threat on food choice. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.5, 414–421. doi: 10.1177/1948550613499941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  CarelsR. A.BurmeisterJ. M.KoballA. M.OehlhofM. W.HinmanN.LeRoyM.et al. (2014). A randomized trial comparing two approaches to weight loss: differences in weight loss maintenance. J. Health Psychol.19, 296–311. doi: 10.1177/1359105312470156

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CarelsR. A.MillerJ. C.SelenskyJ. C.HlavkaR.SolarC.RossiJ.et al. (2019). Using an acceptance-based behavioral approach as a supplement to obesity treatment: a stepped-care approach. J. Contextual Behav. Sci.12, 98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CarelsR. A.SelenskyJ. C.RossiJ.SolarC.HlavkaR. (2017). A novel stepped-care approach to weight loss: the role of self-monitoring and health literacy in treatment outcomes. Eat. Behav.26, 76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.01.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  CarelsR. A.WottC. B.YoungK. M.GumbleA.KoballA.OehlhofM. W. (2010). Implicit, explicit, and internalized weight bias and psychosocial maladjustment among treatment-seeking adults. Eat. Behav.11, 180–185. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2010.03.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  CarelsR. A.YoungK. M.WottC. B.HarperJ.GumbleA.OehlofM. W.et al. (2009). Weight bias and weight loss treatment outcomes in treatment-seeking adults. Ann. Behav. Med.37, 350–355. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9109-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  DaviesA. E.BurnetteC. B.RavytsS. G.MazzeoS. E. (2021). A randomized control trial of expand your horizon: an intervention for women with weight bias internalization. Body Image40, 138–145. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.12.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DickersonS. S.KemenyM. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol. Bull.130, 355–391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DownsS. H.BlackN. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health52, 377–384. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.6.377

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ForbesY. N.MoffittR. L.Van BokkelM.DonovanC. L. (2020). Unburdening the weight of stigma: findings from a compassion-focused group program for women with overweight and obesity. J. Cogn. Psychother.34, 336–357. doi: 10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  HaleyE.DolbierC.CarelsR.WhitedM. (2022). A brief pilot self-compassion intervention for women with overweight/obesity and internalized weight bias: feasibility, acceptability, and future directions. J. Contextual Behav. Sci.23, 59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.12.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  HooperP.JutaiJ.StrongG.Russell-MindaE. (2008). Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation : A systematic review. Canadian. J. Ophthal.43, 180–187. doi: 10.3129/i08-001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  JensenM. D.RyanD. H.ApovianC. M.ArdJ. D.ComuzzieA. G.DonatoK. A.et al. (2014). 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in adults. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.63, 2985–3023. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  LasikiewiczN.MyrissaK.HoylandA.LawtonC. L. (2014). Psychological benefits of weight loss following behavioural and/or dietary weight loss interventions. A systematic research review. Appetite72, 123–137. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.09.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  LevinM. E.PetersenJ. M.DurwardC.BingemanB.DavisE.NelsonC.et al. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of online acceptance and commitment therapy to improve diet and physical activity among adults who are overweight/obese. Transl. Behav. Med.11, 1216–1225. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa123

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  LevinM. E.PottsS.HaegerJ.LillisJ. (2018). Delivering acceptance and commitment therapy for weight self-stigma through guided self-help: results from an open pilot trial. Cogn. Behav. Pract.25, 87–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  LillisJ.HayesS. C.BuntingK.MasudaA. (2009). Teaching acceptance and mindfulness to improve the lives of the obese: a preliminary test of a theoretical model. Ann. Behav. Med.37, 58–69. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9083-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  MacLeanP. S.RothmanA. J.NicastroH. L.CzajkowskiS. M.Agurs-CollinsT.RiceE. L.et al. (2018). The accumulating data to optimally predict obesity treatment (ADOPT) Core measures project: rationale and approach. Obesity26, S6–S15. doi: 10.1002/oby.22154

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  MensingerJ. L.CalogeroR. M.TylkaT. L. (2016). Internalized weight stigma moderates eating behavior outcomes in women with high BMI participating in a healthy living program. Appetite102, 32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  MuennigP. (2008). The body politic: the relationship between stigma and obesity-associated disease. BMC Public Health8:128. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-128

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  MyreM.BerryT. R.BallG. D. C.HusseyB. (2020). Motivated, fit, and strong—using counter-stereotypical images to reduce weight stigma internalisation in women with obesity. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-being12, 335–356. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  OlsonK. L.ThaxtonT. T.EmeryC. F. (2018). Targeting body dissatisfaction among women with overweight or obesity: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Int. J. Eat. Disord.51, 973–977. doi: 10.1002/eat.22874

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  PalmeiraL.CunhaM.Pinto-GouveiaJ. (2019). Processes of change in quality of life, weight self-stigma, body mass index and emotional eating after an acceptance-, mindfulness- and compassion-based group intervention (kg-free) for women with overweight and obesity. J. Health Psychol.24, 1056–1069. doi: 10.1177/1359105316686668

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  PalmeiraL.Pinto-GouveiaJ.CunhaM. (2017). Exploring the efficacy of an acceptance, mindfulness & compassionate-based group intervention for women struggling with their weight (kg-free): a randomized controlled trial. Appetite112, 107–116. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  PearlR. L. (2018). Weight bias and stigma: public health implications and structural solutions. Soc. Issues Policy Rev.12, 146–182. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  PearlR. L.HopkinsC. H.BerkowitzR. I.WaddenT. A. (2018). Group cognitive-behavioral treatment for internalized weight stigma: a pilot study. Eat. Weight Disord.23, 357–362. doi: 10.1007/s40519-016-0336-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  PearlR. L.PuhlR. M. (2018). Weight bias internalization and health: a systematic review. Obes. Rev.19, 1141–1163. doi: 10.1111/obr.12701

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  PearlR. L.WaddenT. A.BachC.GruberK.LeonardS.WalshO. A.et al. (2020a). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention targeting weight stigma: a randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.88, 470–480. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000480

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  PearlR. L.WaddenT. A.BachC.TronieriJ. S.BerkowitzR. I. (2020b). Six-month follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of the weight BIAS program. Obesity28, 1878–1888. doi: 10.1002/oby.22931

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  PontS. J.PuhlR.CookS. R.SlusserW. (2017). Stigma experienced by children and adolescents with obesity. Pediatrics140, 1–11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  PottsS.KrafftJ.LevinM. E. (2022). A pilot randomized controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy guided self-help for overweight and obese adults high in weight self-stigma. Behav. Modif.46, 178–201. doi: 10.1177/0145445520975112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  PuhlR. M. (2011). Bias, stigma, and discrimination. In CawleyJ. (Éd.), The Oxford handbook of the social science of obesity. (pp. 553–571). Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  PuhlR.BrownellK. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes. Res.9, 788–805. doi: 10.1038/oby.2001.108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  PuhlR. M.BrownellK. D. (2006). Confronting and coping with weight stigma: an investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity14, 1802–1815. doi: 10.1038/oby.2006.208

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  PuhlR. M.HeuerC. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity17, 17, 941–964. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.636

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  ScagliusiF. B.UlianM. D.GualanoB.RobleO. J.UnsainR. F.CarrieroM. R.et al. (2020). ‘Before I saw a gas canister, now I see a person’: post obesity-intervention body acceptance and responses to weight stigma among urban Brazilian Gorda Women. Hum. Organ.79, 176–191. doi: 10.17730/1938-3525-79.3.176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  SchveyN. A.PuhlR. M.BrownellK. D. (2011). The impact of weight stigma on caloric consumption. Obesity19, 1957–1962. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.204

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  SeacatJ. D.MickelsonK. D. (2009). Stereotype threat and the exercise/dietary health intentions of overweight women. J. Health Psychol.14, 556–567. doi: 10.1177/1359105309103575

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.69, 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Striegel-MooreR.SmolakL.MatzonJ. L. (2001). Body image dissatisfaction as a motivator for healthy lifestyle change: is some distress beneficial? In Striegel-MooreR. H.SmolakL. (Éds.), Eating disorders: Innovative directions in research and practice. (p. 215–232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  The GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators (2017). Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N. Engl. J. Med.377, 13–27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614362

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  TomiyamaA. J. (2014). Weight stigma is stressful. A review of evidence for the cyclic obesity/weight-based stigma model. Appetite82, 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  TylkaT. L.AnnunziatoR. A.BurgardD.DaníelsdóttirS.ShumanE.DavisC.et al. (2014). The weight-inclusive versus weight-normative approach to health: evaluating the evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss. J. Obes.2014:983495. doi: 10.1155/2014/983495

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  WaddenT. A.WebbV. L.MoranC. H.BailerB. A. (2012). Lifestyle modification for obesity: new developments in diet, physical activity, and behavior therapy. Circulation125, 1157–1170. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.039453

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  WallinE.ParlingT.WeinelandS.DahlJ. (2018). Acceptance and commitment therapy to promote value attainment among individuals with overweight: a multiple baseline evaluation. J. Contextual Behav. Sci.10, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  WingR. R.PhelanS. (2005). Long-term weight loss maintenance. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.82, 222S–225S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/82.1.222S

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  World Obesity Federation. (2023). World obesity atlas 2023. Available at: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wof-files/World_Obesity_Atlas_2023_Report.pdf

  • Google Scholar