Barriers to losing weight for women attending group visits in primary care: A qualitative exploration using in-depth interviews

5Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Despite the accumulated evidence suggesting the positive aspects of using group visits in obesity, the number of qualitative studies that examine why and how the effects occur at an individual level is limited. Objectives: This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of women who participated in group visits and had different weight loss outcomes in the programme. Method: Purposive maximum variation sampling was performed. Data collection and analysis were performed iteratively, and the data saturation method was used as a guideline for sample size. All participants who completed the group visits were approached, and finally, 20 individuals were included in the study. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using a phenomenological approach. Results: The mean age of the individuals was 38.5 ± 9.8 years, the education level ranged from incomplete-high school to university degree, and the weight changes were between +4.1% and −17.1%. Two main themes emerged from the thematic analysis revealing barriers: weight stigma (two sub-themes: internal and external stigma) and traumatic life events (three sub-themes: ‘loss of relatives,’ ‘childhood traumas,’ and ‘conflicting intimate partner relationships’). Conclusion: Considering the barriers to weight loss efforts in this study, these issues need to be explicitly investigated before and during the group visits in addition to weight loss practices and behavioural changes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Özer, Z. Y., Özcan, S., Seydaoğlu, G., & Kurdak, H. (2021). Barriers to losing weight for women attending group visits in primary care: A qualitative exploration using in-depth interviews. European Journal of General Practice, 27(1), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2021.1998446

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free