HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hilbert, A. Articles by Braehler, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hilbert, A. Articles by Braehler, E. Topic Collections Related Article

What determines public support of obesity prevention?

¹ Department of Psychology, Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Therapy, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
² Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr A Hilbert
Department of Psychology, Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Therapy, Philipps University of Marburg, Gutenbergstrasse 18, D-35032 Marburg, Germany; hilbert{at}staff.uni-marburg.de

Objective: To determine public support of obesity prevention.

Design: Representative population-based survey.

Setting: Random digit dialling telephone survey of non-institutionalised individuals aged 14 years in Germany.

Participants: Representative sample of 1000 individuals.

Main outcome measures: Interview-based assessment of prevention support, problem identification, causal attributions and responsibility beliefs regarding obesity.

Results: Support for obesity prevention with a focus on behavioural change in children (89.7%) and provision of information in adults (82.2%) was substantial, but regulations were less supported (42.2%). Predictors of prevention support were attributing causes of obesity to the food environment and lack of physical activity, greater problem identification, societal responsibility beliefs and sociodemographic characteristics including female gender and higher age. An information deficit concerning the definition, prevalence, and environmental and genetic risk factors was identified.

Conclusion: Results show a high public readiness for obesity prevention with a focus on individual behavioural change, but not for regulations. Addressing specific information deficits regarding the definition, prevalence and causes of obesity could further enhance the public’s understanding of obesity and help to establish obesity prevention measures.

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; PCA, principal components analyses

Related Article

In this issue

Carlos Alvarez-Dardet and John R Ashton
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007 61: 561. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]