Back

Bridging the gap: A qualitative analysis of online public forum with healthcare professionals in bursting myths about weight management.

Bhatti, R.; Joumaa, M.; Bereczky, B.

2022-06-05 public and global health
10.1101/2022.06.03.22274963 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundObesity has increased rapidly worldwide in last few decades. According to World Obesity Federation 2018, the prevalence of obesity in UAE amongst Emirati aged 18-69 years has been reported as 32.2% vs 38.5% living with obesity vs overweight in men and 41.8% vs 29.3% living with obesity vs overweight in women. There are many myths amongst general public about obesity. AimThe objective of the study was to address public questions through online forum regarding weight management. MethodsIn this cross-sectional observational study qualitative analysis was done. It was conducted quarterly at Mediclinic City and Parkview Hospital in Dubai from August 2020-September 2021. An online zoom meeting was made available to the public. People who wanted to attend the session registered via dedicated email address. A certified dietician, endocrinologist and bariatric surgeon were available to answer peoples questions. Results6 online forums have been conducted. 163 (range 10-90) people attended. Three themes were constructed during data analysis. 1-Diet: whats the best diet and about caloric intake. 2-Insulin resistance or hormone imbalance is responsible for weight gain. 3-Misinformation and unrealistic expectations about bariatric surgery. Feedback from audience was it was interactive, fun and informative session, its good to know that its not my fault and I need to get help. ConclusionOur results show that patients need support throughout their weight management journey. Healthcare professionals need to be more aware of patients perceptions about weight management so that they can be addressed in consultations. We need more online support sessions facilitated by healthcare professionals.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.