Poster Presentation Australian and New Zealand Obesity Society Annual Scientific Conference 2024

A mapping review of Australian and international obesity-related policies for women during preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum periods using a weight stigma lens. (#232)

Helia Khalesi 1 , Briony Hill 1 , Chloe Tran 1 , Helen Skouteris 1 2 , Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz 3 4 , Jacqueline Boyle 5 , Angela Incollingo Rodriguez 6 , Jane Martin 7 , Lucie Rychetnik 8
  1. Health and Social Care Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  3. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  4. Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  5. Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
  7. Food for Health Alliance, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  8. University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Background: Weight stigma is widely acknowledged as a significant concern for preconception, pregnant and postpartum (PPP) women, particularly for the 50% of women that enter pregnancy with a high body mass index. It can lead to healthcare disengagement and increased risk of depressive symptoms, disordered eating, and postpartum weight retention.  Existing policies and guidelines do not adequately address weight stigma and may inadvertently contribute to it. This mapping review aimed to identify gaps in addressing weight stigma in current Australian and international obesity-related policies relevant to PPP women.  

Method: A mapping review of Australian state-based, national, and international obesity-related policies relevant to PPP women was conducted. Relevant policy documents were identified through government websites and guideline databases. Policy screening and data extraction followed three frameworks (Attribution Theory; Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework; Framework for Policy Mobilisation). Analyses were stratified by the policy’s direct or indirect relevance to PPP women, and Australian and international policies were compared. Strength and gaps in relation to weight stigma were identified.

Results: Forty-one Australian and 18 international policies were included. Ten (24%) Australian policies explicitly mentioned weight stigma and 13 (31%) met criteria for potentially blaming people for their weight or body size. Acknowledgement of drivers and impacts of weight stigma and adequate mobilisation plans were scarce. Findings were consistent across state and national Australian policies, PPP populations, and international comparisons. Strengths of policies comprehensively addressing weight stigma were incorporating lived experience consumers’ voices and acknowledging obesity’s complex and multifactorial nature. Potential improvements included focusing on non-stigmatising language and discourse.

Conclusion: Weight stigma was rarely recognised or not adequately addressed in obesity-related policies for PPP women. Eliminating weight stigma in policies may improve public narratives around obesity, clinical practice, and reproductive-aged women’s experiences and health outcomes.