O besity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan. 1 Epidemiologic studies define obesity using the body mass index (BMI; weight/height 2), which can stratify obesity-related health risks at the population level. Obesity is operationally defined as a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m 2 and is subclassified into class 1 (30-34.9), class 2 (35-39.9) and class 3 (≥ 40). At the population level, health complications from excess body fat increase as BMI increases. 2 At the individual level, complications occur because of excess adiposity, location and distribution of adiposity and many other factors, including environmental, genetic, biologic and socioeconomic factors (Box 1). 11 Over the past 3 decades, the prevalence of obesity has steadily increased throughout the world, 12 and in Canada, it has increased threefold since 1985. 13 Importantly, severe obesity has increased more than fourfold and, in 2016, affected an estimated 1.9 million Canadian adults. 13 Obesity has become a major public health issue that increases health care costs 14,15 and negatively affects physical and psychological health. 16 People with obesity experience pervasive weight bias and stigma, which contributes (independent of weight or BMI) to increased morbidity and mortality. 17 Obesity is caused by the complex interplay of multiple genetic, metabolic, behavioural and environmental factors, with the latter thought to be the proximate cause of the substantial

In this research, we explored the psychological, emotional, and social experiences of individuals living with obesity, and perceptions of health care providers. We conducted a theoretical thematic analysis using two theoretical frameworks applied to transcripts from a previous qualitative study. Themes from a mental well-being framework were subsequently categorized under five environmental levels of the Social-Ecological Model (SEM). Key mental well-being themes appeared across all levels of the SEM, except the policy level. For the individual environment, one main theme was food as a coping mechanism and source of emotional distress. In the interpersonal environment, two themes were (a) blame and shame by family members and friends because of their weight and (b) condemnation and lack of support from health professionals. In the organizational environment, one main theme was inadequate support for mental well-being issues in obesity management programmes. In the community environment, one major theme the negative mental well-being impact of the social stigma of obesity. An overarching theme of weight stigma and bias further shaped the predominant themes in each level of the SEM. Addressing weight stigma and bias, and promoting positive mental well-being are two important areas of focus for supportive management of individuals living with obesity.

Summary Obesity is a chronic disease with a significant and growing impact on Canadians. The “Awareness, Care and Treatment In Obesity MaNagement” (ACTION) Study investigated perceptions, attitudes and perceived barriers to obesity management among Canadian people with obesity (PwO), healthcare providers (HCPs) and employers. In this study adult PwO (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, based on self‐reported height/weight), HCPs (physicians and allied HCPs managing PwO) and employers (≥20 employees; offering health insurance), completed online surveys between 3 August and 11 October 2017 in a cross‐sectional design. Survey respondents (N = 2545) included 2000 PwO, 395 HCPs and 150 employers. Obesity was viewed as a “chronic medical condition” by most PwO (60%), HCPs (94%) and employers (71%) and deemed to have a large impact on overall health (74%, 78%, 81%, respectively). Many PwO (74%) believed weight management was their own responsibility. While PwO (55%) reportedly knew how to manage their weight, only 10% reported maintaining ≥10% weight reduction for >1 year. Despite low success rates, the most commonly reported effective long‐term weight loss methods tried and/or recommended were “improvements in eating habits” (PwO 38%; HCP 63%) and “being more active” (PwO 39%; HCP 54%). PwO and HCPs reported very different perceptions of the quality and content of their interaction during obesity management discussions. These findings highlight the communication gaps and misunderstanding between PwO, HCPs and employers. This underscores the importance of, and need for, evidence‐based management of obesity and a collaborative approach and understanding of the complex nature of this chronic disease.

This study presents pilot data from the implementation and evaluation of an obesity management tool (5As of Obesity Management developed by the Canadian Obesity Network) in a primary care setting. Results show that the tool facilitates weight management in primary care by promoting physician-patient communications, medical assessments for obesity and plans for follow-up care. Obesity remains poorly managed in primary care. The 5As of Obesity Management is a theory-driven, evidence-based minimal intervention designed to facilitate obesity counselling and management by primary care practitioners. This project tested the impact of implementing this tool in primary care clinics. Electronic self-administered surveys were completed by pre-screened obese subjects at the end of their appointments in four primary care clinics (over 25 healthcare providers [HCPs]). These measurements were performed before (baseline, n = 51) and 1 month after implementing the 5As of Obesity Management (post-intervention, n = 51). Intervention consisted of one online training session (90 min) and distribution of the 5As toolkit to HCPs of participating clinics. Subjects completing the survey before and after the intervention were comparable in terms of age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, satisfaction and self-reported health status (P > 0.2). Implementing the 5As of Obesity Management resulted in a twofold increase in the initiation of obesity management (19 vs. 39%, P = 0.03), and caused a statistically significant increase in the perceived follow-up/coordination efforts (self-reported Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care components, 45 ± 22 vs. 67 ± 12 points, P = 0.002), as well as two components of the 5As framework: Assess (50 ± 29 vs. 66 ± 15 points, P = 0.03) and Assist (54 ± 26 vs. 72 ± 13 points, P = 0.01). Our results suggest that using the 5As of Obesity Management facilitates weight management in primary care by promoting physician-patient communications, medical assessments for obesity and plans for follow-up care.

ObjectiveTo understand current gestational weight gain (GWG) counselling practices of healthcare providers, and the relationships between practices, knowledge and attitudes.DesignConcurrent mixed methods with data integration: cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews.ParticipantsPrenatal healthcare providers in Canada: general practitioners, obstetricians, midwives, nurse practitioners and registered nurses in primary care settings.ResultsTypically, GWG information was provided early in pregnancy, but not discussed again unless there was a concern. Few routinely provided women with individualised GWG advice (21%), rate of GWG (16%) or discussed the risks of inappropriate GWG to mother and baby (20% and 19%). More routinely discussed physical activity (46%) and food requirements (28%); midwives did these two activities more frequently than all other disciplines (P<0.001). Midwives interviewed noted a focus on overall wellness instead of weight, and had longer appointment times which allowed them to provide more in-depth counselling. Regression results identified that the higher priority level that healthcare providers place on GWG, the more likely they were to report providing GWG advice and discussing risks of GWG outside recommendations (β=0.71, P<0.001) and discussing physical activity and food requirements (β=0.341, P<0.001). Interview data linked the priority level of GWG to length of appointments, financial compensation methods for healthcare providers and the midwifery versus medical model of care.ConclusionsInterventions for healthcare providers to enhance GWG counselling practices should consider the range of factors that influence the priority level healthcare providers place on GWG counselling.