Addressing Atlanta, Georgia’s Childhood Obesity: An Ineffective Public Health Intervention – Emma Lodato
Childhood
obesity is a growing public health concern, especially within the United
States. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) uses the body mass index (BMI) as a unit of
measurement for classification of body weight.
Children and adolescents, who are of the same age
and sex, are defined as being overweight if the BMI is at or
above the 85th percentile and lower than the 95th percentile. The CDC categorizes obese children and
adolescents, who are of the same age and sex, who have a BMI at or above the 95th
percentile. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) estimates
that 17% of all US children and adolescents (aged 2-19 years old) are obese as
of April 2011 (1). Since the inception
of NHANES in 1971, the prevalence of overweight and obese children and
adolescents within the United States has more than tripled (2). Children and adolescents who are overweight
or obese present a major public health concern since they are at an increased
risk of experiencing immediate deleterious health problems as well as increased
risks for health hazards later in life (3).
Childhood obesity has been positively correlated to increased risk factors
for cardiovascular disease as well as type-2 diabetes (4). Moreover, children and adolescents who are
overweight or obese have increased risks of exacerbating obesity related health
problems and remaining overweight or obese into adulthood (5-7). Problems associated with obesity place a
financial strain on the US healthcare system costing the US approximately $150
billion each year (8). The adverse
health effects coupled with the high financial costs has urged public health
officials to prioritize and address the issue of obesity.
A
Multifactorial Explanation for the Childhood Obesity Epidemic
A single
explanation accounting for the childhood obesity and overweight epidemic cannot
be ascertained since it is considered to be multifactorial (9). Genetic, environmental, social and behavioral
factors have been found to be related in determining an individual’s body
weight (10-11). Many individuals
attribute the rising rates of childhood obesity to the obesogenic environment
(12). This environment has an
overabundance of unhealthy foods that are laden with fat and sugar coupled with
a lifestyle that has decreased amounts of physical activity (13). Research has revealed that American children
are consuming more unhealthy food and engaging in less physical activity
compared to previous decades (1).
Individuals living in poverty have more pronounced negative changes in
diet and physical activity. Biro and
Wein have stated that children from low-income households are at an increased
risk of being overweight or obese due to the unhealthy lifestyles that are
common amongst these households (7).
Addressing the Childhood Obesity and
Overweight Epidemic
The Southern region of
the US reports the highest prevalence rates of childhood obesity. Currently, nine of the ten states with the
highest prevalence rates of childhood obesity are located within the South (8).
Mississippi reports the highest prevalence rate of obese and overweight
children while Georgia ranks second.
Over 21% of children aged 10-17 years old have a body mass index (BMI)
that can be categorized as obese (8). Due
to the rising prevalence rates of obese and overweight children coupled with
the adverse health and financial consequences, public health officials have
implemented several interventions.
The Children’s
Healthcare of Atlanta Pediatric Hospital (CHOA), one of the nation’s top
pediatric hospitals within the US, has recently designed and implemented a
childhood anti-obesity campaign in Atlanta, Georgia (14). By utilizing several forms of media, such as
television and billboard advertisements, CHOA hopes to raise awareness about
the problems of childhood obesity and to thereby help control the epidemic. An example of a television advertisement has
a young obese girl speak about how she is frightened that her doctor has
diagnosed her with hypertension. At the
end of the clip, a message displays, “Stop sugar-coating it Georgia” (Appendix
Television Advertisement #1). Billboard advertisements
were placed around Atlanta, Georgia with a young obese girl and a slogan that
reads: “WARNING: It’s hard to be a
little girl if you’re not” (Appendix Billboard Advertisement #1; figure 1). Previous studies suggest that CHOA’s
childhood anti-obesity campaign will most likely do more harm than good since
the current campaign has serious flaws and fails to address other important
issues such as a child’s self-esteem (13).
This media campaign will probably be ineffective in meeting its goal of
reducing the prevalence rates of childhood obesity in Atlanta, Georgia.
Criticisms
While every public health intervention can
be improved, CHAO’s public health intervention to combat childhood obesity is
seriously flawed. Three criticisms
discussing this public health campaign are presented below. These criticisms will discuss how CHOA’s
campaign reinforces stigmas and labels, places an emphasis on the individual’s
characteristics and does not consider multiple factors that may contribute to
the childhood obesity epidemic, and fails to recognize the external locus of
control.
Criticism 1: Reinforcing Stigmas and Labels
Most stigmas and labels are
perceived as negative by and to others often resulting in a diminished sense of
self-worth that may further perpetuate the problem (55). CHOA states that their advertisements were
necessary as a public health intervention in order to raise awareness about the
adverse health effects that overweight and obese children may face. By using catch phrases such as “stop
sugarcoating it” and “thick like her momma”, CHOA was hoping to relate the
problems of childhood obesity to parents since many parents fail to recognize
their children as being overweight or obese (14). The encouragement of labeling and
stigmatizing overweight and obese children is ineffective as a public health
initiative to improve the health of children who are overweight or obese
(14-17). CHOA failed to recognize the
unintended negative consequences of their advertisements such as labeling
children who are overweight or obese.
Furthermore, the advertisements used during this campaign stigmatize
children who suffer from weight related issues.
Labels
By labeling children as ‘fat’ through messages
such as “My fat may be funny to you but it’s killing me” (Appendix Billboard Ad
#2; figure 2), one may negatively alter a child’s self-image. By clearly and harshly labeling people as
fat, especially children who are overweight or obese, they may begin to
struggle with their self-esteem and self-image.
According to the labeling theory, labels may change how a person behaves
since individuals often change his/her behavior in order to meet the standards
of the label that has been given to him/her by society (15). According to current American culture, overweight
and obese individuals are commonly viewed as indolent and undisciplined. Children who are labeled as such may begin to
engage in behaviors and activities that promote weight gain through
self-fulfilling prophecies. Examples of
such behavior may include increased caloric intake coupled with decreased
physical activity. While CHOA believes
that terms such as “fat” and “obese” act as motivators in helping to encourage
a child to lose weight, current and previous research does not support CHOA’s
assumption. Regardless of age, people
who are overweight or obese do not prefer or like being called “fat” and often
view this label as being discouraging rather than motivating (16). With this
finding, CHOA’s childhood anti-obesity campaign’s goal and message is
counterproductive and thereby will probably be ineffective.
Stigmatizing
These advertisements
pertaining to CHOA’s childhood anti-obesity campaign may further stigmatize
overweight and obese children. In current American culture, harsh and realistic
social stigmas are applied to individuals who are overweight or obese. When comparing children and adolescents who
are overweight or obese to normal weight children and adolescents, those who
suffer from obesity or being overweight report being more likely to be teased
than their healthy counterparts.
Children who are overweight or obese are often victims of harassment and
bullying. Individuals who are
victimized, in this case children who are obese or overweight, are at an
increased risk of developing associated problems such decreased self-esteem,
dissatisfaction with body image, depression, and poor social skills (17).
Literature suggests
CHOA’s childhood anti-obesity campaign advertisements will only exacerbate the
problems that overweight and obese children encounter on a regular basis (55). By making these advertisements public and
readily visible, children and adolescents who are of normal weight may perceive
the message that it is acceptable and actually beneficial to label, stigmatize
and berate their overweight or obese peers.
Parents of overweight or obese children may also become insensitive to
weight management issues and thereby neglect their child’s weight issue thereby
exacerbating the epidemic. By promoting
and permitting the victimization of overweight and obese children, studies
suggest that there will be an overall prevalence rate increase of decreased
self-esteem, dissatisfaction with one’s body, depression, and decreased social
skills (16, 55). Children who are obese
or overweight may experience an increase in teasing, bullying, and become a
more likely target for general harassment.
This increase of harassment may promote overweight or obese adolescents
and children to engage in solitary behaviors.
Examples of solitary behaviors may include avoiding physical activity and
coping mechanisms that induce comfort such as an increase in unhealthier eating
habits. The physical and mental health
of overweight and obese children will further wane as a result of CHOA’s
childhood anti-obesity campaign.
Critique 2: Too Much Emphasis on the Individual
Characteristics and Not Enough on the Social Factors
Health
Belief Model
CHOA utilized the health belief
model in their childhood anti-obesity campaign.
The health belief model is based upon three assumptions: 1) the understanding that an individual will
engage in a positive health behavior if the individual feels that a health
hazard can be avoided, 2) believes that the positive health behavior will deter
the health hazard and 3) that the individual can successfully perform the
positive health behavior (18). An example of usage of the health belief model
can be found in one of CHOA’s television advertisements in which the mother
states, “When the doctor said she [the daughter] had type-2 diabetes, I never
thought what we eat made her sick. I
always thought she was thick like her momma” (Appendix TV Advertisement
#2). Another example includes a billboard
advertisement that warns that “Chubby kids may not outlive their parents” which
implies that overweight and obese children are at a higher risk for premature
death (Appendix Billboard Advertisement #3; figure 3).
Considering the environmental model of health, this model focuses on
multiple factors that affect an individual’s health that are typically external
and that the health belief model is inadequate for this specific public health
intervention. Such factors may include
access to nutritious food, socio-economic conditions, and living conditions
which may contribute to the individual’s inability to control his/her weight. An example of this may be that a family of 2
depends on $367.00, the current maximum benefit allowance for the Supplemental
Nutritional Assistance Program (food stamps).
This family may not have access to a personal vehicle to transport them
to the supermarket which may be miles away.
The family is then dependent upon small convenience stores for their
grocery needs. These convenience stores often lack an assortment of nutritious
food at affordable prices, thereby exacerbating the family’s inability to even
consider nutritious food.
The designers of this advertisement campaign thought that if the child
and caretaker understood the adverse health effects associated with obesity,
then the child and caretaker would take the appropriate measures to help the
child reach a healthy weight. While the
health belief model has been proven to be effective and useful for several
public health interventions, it probably should not have been applied to this
campaign. While the campaign’s message
that caretakers and children should know the facts and health hazards associated
with childhood obesity should not be undermined, the campaign’s belief that by simply
informing caretakers and children that the child or adolescent is obese and is
therefore at an increased risk for an adverse health effect will be ineffective in decreasing the obesity prevalence rates in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Fundamental
Attribution Error
CHOA’s childhood
anti-obesity campaign places the fault entirely on the child and the caretaker. One billboard advertisement states,
“Warning: Big bones didn’t make me this
way. Big meals did” while another
states, “Fat prevention begins at home.
And the buffet line” (Appendix Billboard Advertisement #4; figure 4 and
Appendix Billboard Advertisement #5; figure 5).
These particular billboard advertisements endorse the current American
culture’s perspective of overweight and obese individuals and makes the
fundamental attribution error. The
fundamental attribution error is when a party uses
personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while
under-valuing situational explanations (18). By simply
implying that obese and overweight children are gluttons as the fundamental
attribution error does, it completely dismisses the consideration of the
environmental model which suggests an array of other factors that may be a
reason as to why the child is consuming “big meals” (12, 16, 19). There could be a variety of external factors that
offer valid explanations. Such examples
may be: 1) both parents work several
jobs and only have time to cook one meal a day or 2) there may not be a
supermarket within the area, only fast food restaurants and bodegas or 3) both
aforementioned scenarios. In order to
help tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity, the real reasons behind the epidemic
must be addressed rather than placing the blame on the child and or the
caretaker.
CHOA committed the fundamental attribution error in their childhood
anti-obesity campaign as they dismissed the social, environmental, economic,
and biological factors that are contributors to the epidemic. As mentioned previously, obesity
disproportionately affects individuals who are of lower socioeconomic
status. Due to the financial constraints
that the caretakers may experience, they probably do not make healthy food
choices a top priority, especially for their children (19). The advertisements that CHOA implemented were
based within the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia. Coincidently, Atlanta, Georgia ranks as the
top city with the highest number of poor children and adolescents within the US
(20). Unless the poverty issue is
addressed within Atlanta, CHOA’s childhood anti-obesity campaign will do little
to help to resolve Atlanta’s epidemic of childhood obesity.
Critique 3:
Failure to Address the Locus of Control
CHOA and its collaborators of the childhood anti-obesity campaign in
Atlanta, Georgia failed to address the theory of the locus of control. This theory refers to the extent that an
individual believes that he/she has control within his/her life. Those individuals who have an internal locus
of control have an increased perception of control within his/her life. Those with
an external locus of control reveal a decreased perception of control within his/her
life (18). Populations of lower
socioeconomic status often have external locus of controls as well as increased
mortality rates (20, 21). Populations of
higher socioeconomic status are more likely to have an internal locus of
control. Previous studies have shown
that populations of a comfortable or high socioeconomic status more frequently
engage in healthy behaviors and also have a decreased risk of disease and
mortality (21).
In the advertisements issued during
this campaign, caretakers are simply warned about the potential health risks
that an overweight or obese child may encounter. This was done because CHOA believed that the
caretakers would take measures to encourage healthy weight loss once these
risks were understood. CHOA’s mass media
campaign failed to address the issue that some caretakers do not feel in
control of their lives, let alone the child’s weight issue. To further support this idea, previous
attempts to lose weight for both the child and caretaker may have been
unsuccessful in the past which only further promotes this sense of lack of
control.
As stated previously, the external
locus of control may be a hallmark characteristic of families from a low
socioeconomic status (21). Considering several
facts, such as Atlanta’s ranking regarding impoverished children and that
socioeconomic status and BMI are inversely proportional, one may conclude that
the affected populations in Atlanta are impoverished and therefore have an
external locus of control (1, 19, 20, 21,).
With an external locus of control, these individuals are conditioned to
believe that they will not be able to avoid adverse health events. This thereby acts as a discouragement for
them from attempting to achieve better health (22). Since CHAO’s campaign failed to address the
issue of the external locus of control, the prevalence rates for childhood
obesity probably will not decrease. This
prevalence rate will probably continue to rise because the caretakers are not
provided the resources, skills, and tools to develop their internal locus of
control.
Interventions
As discussed, these issues are
critical components of CHAO’s campaign that will most likely lead to an
ineffective public health intervention.
A proposal of three different interventions are presented below that may
be able to remedy CHAO’s public health campaign against childhood and
adolescent obesity. To formulate a more
effective public health campaign against childhood obesity for CHAO, these
interventions discuss the elimination of stigmas and labels, consideration of
environmental models, and fostering an internal locus of control.
Intervention 1: Eliminating the Encouragement of Stigmas and
Labels
The
combination of the social network theory and offering positive messages
would eliminate the use of stigmas and labels from CHOA’s campaign. The social network theory perceives social relationships in terms of nodes
and ties. The nodes are the individual characters within the networks and the ties
are the relationships between the individual characters. In this theory, the
attributes of individuals are not as important as the relationships between the
nodes and the ties (18). First,
the campaign must understand the origin of stigmas that are associated with
children who are obese or overweight and to avoid incorporating aspects of
these stigmas within the campaign. An
effective way to do so would be to offer a social support network for obese or
overweight children in collaboration with their peers. Previous studies have found that early social
interactions decrease various forms of discrimination and prejudice (23). By encouraging a social support network, the
behavior of obese and overweight children may change so that they want to
become healthy. Additionally, the
harassing behaviors from their peers may evolve to become more accepting. In a supportive social network, all parties
should ideally benefit.
CHOA’s childhood anti-obesity campaign can make
immediate modifications by eliminating the advertisements that feature a
solitary child and dismal background.
CHOA can incorporate advertisements of children from various ethnic
backgrounds and weights engaging in healthy activities thereby dismantling the
reinforcement of stigmas and labels.
These advertisements would boast a positive and colorful message, such
as an encouragement of fun physical activity with their peers. The slogans on these advertisements would
avoid labels such as “chubby”, “fat”, and “big boned” and utilize phrases that
include positive words such as “fun”, “healthy”, and “cool”. By discouraging the use of social stigmas,
obese and overweight children may want to engage in healthy habits with their
peers and may find enjoyment in doing so.
The
social network theory can also be applied in reducing stigmas by fostering a
positive environment and support network that is culturally sensitive. Weight stigmas, like ethnic stigmas, vary across
the US (24). It is imperative to be
culturally understanding and sensitive when developing these positive
environments and support networks. By
understanding the origin of weight stigmas in that particular culture, public
health officials can begin to reduce them and further avoid situations that may
be related to the stigma’s origin.
Moreover, studies have shown that repeated social interactions reduce
discrimination and prejudice. As
individuals are repeatedly exposed to something that is ‘negative’, tolerance
increases while prejudice decreases. Different
positive environments would help to foster this development of tolerance. Additionally, networks including individuals
with similar weight problems could prove to be more efficacious than targeting the
individuals alone (25).
Studies
suggest eliminating the warning labels from the advertisements (56). An alternative could include a group of
children of different weights engaging in positive and healthy behaviors. By showing children interacting together
(regardless of any social factor such as weight, age, height, race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, etc.), a more positive message will be delivered that
does not encourage the use of overweight and obese stigmas. In doing so, the elimination of stigmas from
the campaign and possibly society may be feasible.
Intervention 2: Stop Attributing the Problem to the
Individual and Start Addressing the Social Factors
By eliminating the obesogenic environment, it
would encourage and facilitate healthy weight-loss as well as the maintenance
of a healthy weight. It is highly
improbable that there will be a decrease in obesity rates by simply encouraging
personal responsibility and behavioral change on an individual level (26, 27,
28). Therefore, policy changes that
would gradually eliminate the obesogenic environment are necessary. By utilizing the agenda setting theory, the
childhood obesity epidemic would be a primary concern on the health agenda and
therefore be addressed by policy makers (18, 28). This can be done through a variety of
creative ways in order to make the childhood obesity epidemic relevant,
relatable, and legitimate. Such ways
could frame the childhood obesity epidemic by emphasizing its potential impacts
on national security and safety. This
could be accomplished by publicizing shocking statistics relevant to national
security and safety. An example of such
statistics are that approximately 30% of all eligible military personnel aged
17-24 years old do not meet the weight requirements (29). Local security and safety is also affected
because many police personnel fail the fitness tests that are required for the
continuation of their profession (8, 30, 31).
Once government personnel realize the future negative impacts of the
childhood obesity epidemic in relation to security and safety, policy changes
may be able to occur (32).
Initiatives
such as banning unhealthy food items from schools and replacing them with economic
healthier alternatives may be also promoted (34). Rather than recommending a physical education
requirement and recess, they would be federally enforced for both public and
private institutions (35, 36). Other
policy changes, such as making healthier food available for lower income
communities, such as encouraging the acceptance of WIC checks and food stamps
at farmers markets, may also be implemented (37, 38). Furthermore, the recent decision of Congress
to end the subsidies on corn ethanol may help to reduce the price healthy foods
(39, 40). Ideally, this decrease in cost
should make healthier food alternatives more affordable and available to those
of a lower socioeconomic status.
Intervention
3: Encouraging an Internal Locus of
Control
Parental self-efficacy
can also be improved upon via the use of advertisements. As previously discussed in the section “Failure to Address the Locus of Control”,
many caretakers feel as if they do not have control over their health let alone
their child’s health (8). The caretakers
need to be provided the tools, skills, and ideas to improve their health as
well as their child’s health, such as how to deter themselves and their
families from unhealthy food choices (22, 41).
Caretakers and children should also be informed of the early signs of
negative health effects such as feeling out of breath while going up stairs,
sweating while eating or consuming sugary food items, and frequent
urination. By incorporating these tools
within an efficacious public health intervention, the caretakers will feel as
if they have more control over their health as well as their child’s; thereby
improving the self-efficacy of the caretaker (41, 42).
Previous studies have demonstrated that social support systems, either
functional or structural, are often effective in helping an individual adhere
to a regime (53). Furthermore, studies
have demonstrated that personal narratives can often foster a sense of
empowerment (54). Similar to the CDC’s
VERB campaign, advertisements showing personal stories and social interaction
amongst a support group could be implemented ( TV Advertisements 4 – 10). This can be accomplished by having
advertisements convey a personal story about how both the caretaker and child
worked together in reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. Within these advertisements, the families
would be shown eating healthy foods and engaging in fun physical activities
together (Figures 6 & 7). These
activities would be accessible and feasible amongst the targeted
population. In this scenario, the
population that is most affected by the childhood overweight and obesity
epidemic in Atlanta, Georgia are those who are of a lower socioeconomic status.
Such activities for the affected population in this scenario may include
double-dutch skipping rope, engaging in free programs such as Cardio Kids,
utilizing playgrounds, line dancing organizations, creating community athletic
teams that charge no fee, and urban gardening (43, 44, 45, 46). Caretakers who view these advertisements may
be able to relate to the characters within the advertisement. They may also feel as if they have gained the
optimism to improve their personal health as well as their child’s. These advertisements would not place the
blame on the caretaker or the child but rather offer an optimistic message that
is also encouraging.
Conclusion:
A Positive and Encouraging Message
In one of the childhood
anti-obesity television advertisements created by CHOA, a child asks his
mother, “Why am I fat?” (Appendix Television Advertisement #3). A more appropriate and effective question
would have been “What can I do about my weight to improve my health?” The
television or billboard advertisements only raise awareness about the potential
health hazards of a child being obese or overweight and do not offer any
solutions. Raising awareness is great
and necessary for some public health issues, but not for a childhood
anti-obesity campaign. Many of the
affected individuals are aware that they are overweight or obese, that there
are negative health consequences associated with being obese or overweight, and
that there is an obesity epidemic plaguing the US. As public health officials, CHOA could have
done a more effective and wholesome job raising awareness that offers
encouragement while proposing feasible solutions. When effective, realistic, and valuable
solutions are presented, an overall improvement of our nation’s health may be
achieved.
Mass media campaigns and
promotions have been shown to be effective in modifying the public’s
behavior. In order to implement an
effective mass media campaign addressing the childhood obesity epidemic, it
would be best if it were employed simultaneously during the execution of public
health policies that also address the same epidemic. There have been several successful mass
public health interventions that have addressed the childhood obesity and
overweight epidemic. An example is the
CDC’s national VERB It’s What You Do Campaign. It has been shown to be highly efficacious in
increasing physical activity levels amongst adolescents by using simple
marketing principles such as branding.
Huhman and colleagues have also revealed that adolescents perceived the
CDC’s VERB marketing campaign as being trendy and popular which thereby
encouraged the adolescents to become more physically active (47). I think that a similar mass media campaign
could be implemented by Georgia’s public health officials and would be just as
efficacious as the CDC’s VERB campaign.
Currently, Georgia and CHOA are utilizing fear tactics in hopes of
modifying unhealthy behaviors that lead to childhood and adolescent obesity. While fear tactics with strong efficacy
messages have been shown to be somewhat effective, CHOA’s used of strong fear
tactics and low-efficacy messages will probably prove to be ineffective (48,49).
I believe that campaigns with positive messages will offer hope and knowledge
to the affected childhood and adolescent populations as well as encouragement
(23).
By understanding that
the current obesity epidemic cannot and will not be resolved through individual
action alone, be it in adults or children, progress can be made in decreasing
the prevalence rates of obesity (18, 19, 26, 27, 28). Moreover, a change in the current obesogenic
environment must be made because it is adversely affecting individuals,
especially children, who live in it (50, 51).
In doing so, the feelings of helplessness may be addressed (52). The new campaign would empower the caretakers
and children to make a collaborative effort within their familial unit, as well
as community, to make better and healthier choices for their health.
REFERENCES
1. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Overweight and Obesity: Obesity Rates Among All Children in the US. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/data.html
2. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention: Odgen C,
Carroll, M. Prevalence of Obesity Among Children and Adolescents: United States,
Trends 1963-1955 and 2007-2008.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Health Statistics, 2010.
3. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Overweight and
Obesity: Basics About Childhood Obesity. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/basics.html.
4. Freedman DS, Dietz WH,
Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. The Relation of Overweight to Cardiovascular Risk
Factors Among Children and Adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 1999;103:1175-1182.
5. Whitaker RC, Wright JA,
Pepe MS, Seidel KD, Dietz WH. Predicting Obesity in Young Adulthood from
Childhood and Parental Obesity. New
England Journal of Medicine 1997;37:869-873.
6. Serdula MK, Ivery D,
Coates RJ, Freedman DS, Williamson DF, Byers T. Do Obese Children Become Obese
Adults? A Review of the Literature. Preventive
Medicine 1993;22:167-177.
7.
Biro FM,
Wien M. Childhood Obesity and Adult Morbidities. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010; 91: 1499S—1505S.
8.
Levi J. Segal LM, Laurent
B, Kohn D. F as in Fat: How Obesity
Threatens America’s Future. Issue Report from the Trust for America’s
Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011. http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH2011FasInFat10.pdf.
9. Bray GA, Macdiarmid
J. The Epidemic of Obesity. The
Western Journal of Medicine 2000;172:78-79.
10. Farooqi S I, O’Rahilly SO. Recent Advances in the Genetics of Severe
Childhood Obesity. The Archives of Disease in Childhood 2000;83:31-34.
11. Viner RM, Cole TJ. Adult Socioeconomic, Educational, Social and
Psychological Outcomes of Childhood Obesity:
A National Birth Cohort Study. The British Journal of Medicine
2005;330:1354-1359.
12. Ard JA. Unique Perspectives on the Obesogenic
Environment. The Journal of Internal Medicine 2007;7:1058-1060.
13. Simon M. Appetite for Profit:
How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back. NYC,
NY: Nation Books, 2006.
14. Children’s Healthcare of
Atlanta-CHOA. Faced with an Epidemic, Children’s Leads Campaign to Stop Childhood
Obesity, 2011. http://www.choa.org/Child-Wellness
15. Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening
E, Shrout PE, Dohrenwend BP. A Modified
Labeling Theory Approach to Mental Disorders:
An Empirical Assessment. American Sociological Review 1989;54:400-423.
16. Puhl R. Bias,
Discrimination, and Obesity: A Social
Injustice and Public Health Priority, 2011.
http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/bias/WeightBias_PhiladelphiaDPH_3.11.pdf.
17. Robinson S. Victimization of Obese Adolescents. The
Journal of School Nursing 2006;22:201-206.
18. Aronson E, Wilson TD, Akert RM. Social
Psychology (6th edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
2007.
19. Link
BG, Phelan J. Social Conditions as
Fundamental Causes of Diseases. The
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1995; 35 (extra issue):80-94.
20. Metro- Atlanta Task Force for
the Homeless Statistics and Myth-busters. 2007.
http://www.homelesstaskforce.org/thefacts.html
21. Wallston BS, Wallston KA. Locus of control and health: a
review of
the literature. Health
Education Monographs 1978;6:107-117.
22. Clarke JH, MacPherson BW, Homes DR. Cigarette Smoking and External Locus of
Control Among Young Adolescence. The Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1982;23:
253-259.
23. Martin JK, Lang A,
Olafsdottir S. Rethinking Theoretical Approches to Stigma : A
Framework Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma (FINIS).
Social Science and Medicine
2008;67 :431-440.
24. Puhl RM, Heuer
CA. The Stigma of Obesity: A Review and Update. Obesity 2009;17:941-964.
25. Brown I, Thompson J, Tod A, Jones G. Primary Care Support for Tackling
Obesity: A Qualitative Study of the
Perceptions of Obese Patients. The
British Journal of General Practice 2006;56:666-672.
26. McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual Causes of Death in
the United States. JAMA 1993;
270:2207-2212.
27. Schwartz MB, Puhl R. Childhood Obesity: A Societal Problem to Solve. Obesity
Reviews 2003;4:57-71.
28. Sarafino
EP. Health Psychology: Biopsychosocial Interactions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, 2008.
29. Bacon, LM.
Study: Soldiers Use Extreme Methods to Meet Military Weight Rules. USA Today, 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-12-06-military-weight_N.htm
30. Sorensen L, Smolander J, Louhevaara V,
Korhonen O, Oja P. Physical Activity,
Fitness and Body Composition of Finnish Police Officers: A 15 Year Follow-Up Study. Oxford
Journal of Occupational Medicine 1999;50:3-10.
31. Joyner C.
More Police, Fire Recruits Flunk Fitness Test. USA
Today 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-09-obese-recruits_N.htm
32. Christeson W, Dawson – Taggart A, Messner -
Zidell, S. Too Fat to Fight: Retired
Military Leaders Want Junk Food Out of America’s Schools. Mission: Readiness 2010. http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_Fat_to_Fight-1.pdf
33. Emery SL, Szczypka G, Powell LM, Chaloupka
FJ. Public Health Obesity-Related TV
Advertising: Lessons Learned From
Tobacco. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 2007;33:
257-263.
34. Egan T. In Bid To Improve Nutrition, Schools Expel
Soda and Chips. New York Times 2002.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/20/us/in-bid-to-improve-nutrition-schools-expel-soda-and-chips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
35. Slater SJ, Nicholson L, Chriqui J, Turner L,
Chaloupka F. The Impact of State Laws
and District Policies on Physical Education and Recess Practices in a
Nationally Representative Sample of US Public Elementary Schools. Archives
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2011;0:201111331-6.
36. Madsen K.
Promoting the Health of Our Youth:
Why Physical Activity Policies Are Critical. Archives
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2011;0:2011112451-2.
37. Fisher A.
Hot Peppers and Parking Lot Peaches:
Evaluating Farmers’ Markets in Low Income Communities. Community
Food Security Coalition 1999; 1-58.
http://thrive.preventioninstitute.org/sa/enact/neighborhood/documents/community.farmersmarkets.tools.hotpepperspeaches.pdf
38. Kantor LA.
Community Food Security Program Improves Food Access. Food
Review 2001;24:20-26.
39. Babcock BA, Fabiosa JF. The Impace of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies
on Corn Prices: Revisiting History. Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development Policy Brief 2011;11-PB 5;1-12.
40. Watson B. How the (Finally Ended) Corn Ethanol Subside
Made Us Fatter. Daily Finance 2011.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/01/04/how-the-finally-ended-corn-ethanol-subsidy-made-us-fatter/
41. Martin PD, Dutton GR, Brantley PJ. Self-Efficacy As a Predictor of Weight Change
in African-American Women. Obesity Research 2004;12:646-651.
42. Kinard BR, Webster C. The Effects of Advertising, Social
Influences, and Self-Efficacy on Adolescent Tobacco Use and Alcohol
Consumption. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 2010;44:24-43.
43. Queen of Hearts Foundation. Cardio
Kids.
http://www.qohf.org/cardio_kids.html
44. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. BAM! Body and Mind.
http://www.bam.gov/sub_physicalactivity/activitycards_jumprope.html
45. Hayes M. Family Dances to Fight Childhood
Obesity. Fox Atlanta 2011.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/good_day_atl/Family-Dances-to-Fight-Child-Obesity-20110315-gda-sd
46. Libman K.
Growing Youth Growing Food: How
Vegetable Gardening Influences Young People’s Food Consciousness and Eating
Habits. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 2007;6:87-95.
47. Huhman PM, Wong FL, Banspach SW, Duke JC,
Heitzler, CD. Effects of a Mass Media
Campaign to Increase Physical Activity Among Children: Year -1 Results of the VERB Campaign. Pediatrics
2005;116:277-284.
48. Thomas SL, Lewis S, Hyde J, Castle D,
Komesaroff P. “The Solution Needs to be Complex.”
Obese Adults’ Attitudes About the Effectiveness of Individual and
Population Based Interventions for Obesity.
Bio Med Central Public Health
2010;10:420-429.
49. Witte K, Allen M. A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health
Campaigns. Health Education and Behavior 2000;27:591-615.
50. Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza
F. Dissecting Obesogenic
Environments: The Development and
Application of a Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Environmental
Interventions for Obesity. Preventive Medicine 1999;29:563-570.
51. Lobstein T, Dibb S. Evidence of a Possible Link Between
Obesogenic Food Advertising and Child Overweight. Obesity
Reviews 2005;6:203-208.
52. Burns D, Haggart M, Longshaw K, Thornton
R. The Public Health Challenge of
Obesity: Is it the New Smoking? The
Journal of Community Nursing 2009;23:4-9.
53. DiMatteo MR.
Social Support and Patient Adherence to Medical Treatment: A
Meta-Analysis. Health
Psychology 2004;23(2): 207-218.
54. Rappaport J. Empowerment Meets Narrative: Listening to Stories and Creating
Setings. American Journal of Community Psychology 1995;23(5):795-807.
55. Lubkin PL.
Chronic Illness: Impact and
Intervention. Jones and Bartlett
Learning 2013: New York, NY.
56. MacLean L, Edwards N, Garrard
M, Sims-Jones N, Clinton K, Ashley A.
Obesity, Stigma, and Public Health Planning. Health
Promotional International 2009;24(1):88-93.
APPENDIX
1. YouTube. August 21, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CUuu5CODEmg. Retrieved January 15, 2012.
2. YouTube. August 23, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aaFhB1fu31k. Retrieved January 17, 2012.
3. YouTube. August 21, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIzX_iDUKs. Retrieved January 17, 2012. Retrieved January 17, 2012.
4. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=609d4e92b6066451e3c913830d5e345020100518165739159. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
5. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=6d8cf5ca1c85553680600beee99b9a5d20100517150602872. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
6. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=df0c251502b04d90d56e40fec6807a8420100518170533747. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
7. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=8b5938e3e57ec88cefd47fab16787b5220100518144550778. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
8. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=76c9cf7be89792811fae03474e19982d20100519142238825. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
9. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=eb6c6cbc887b724df3da60733c2cdd8720100519150147959. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
10. CDC.http://streaming.cdc.gov/vod.php?id=b489e9f16dd56813c6229d2083c2009c20100406111842484. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
Billboard Advertisements/Figures
1. Stampler L. This Shocking Anti-Childhood Obesity Campaign is Stirring National Controversy. Business Insider. January 3, 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/this-shocking-anti-childhood-obesity-campaign-is-stirring-national-controversy-2012-1?op=1. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
2. Goldgier D. Childhood Obesity Ads Serve Up Truth With A Side of Guilt. AdPulp. January 1, 2012. .http://www.adpulp.com/childhood-obesity-ads-serve-up-truth-with-a-side-of-guilt/. Retrieved January 9, 2012.
3. Van Ness N. Billboards Target ‘Chubby Kids’. North West Ohio. May 6, 2011. http://www.northwestohio.com/news/photos.aspx?id=614804. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
4. Crary D. Amid ‘War on Obesity’ Skeptics Warn of Stigma. ABC News. May 1, 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13502691. Retrieved January 13, 2012.
5. Stampler L. This Shocking Anti-Childhood Obesity Campaign is Stirring National Controversy. Business Insider. January 3, 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/this-shocking-anti-childhood-obesity-campaign-is-stirring-national-controversy-2012-1?op=1. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
6. Colplon B. Weight Management if a Family Affair. States Man Journal. March 24, 2012. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20120325/HEALTH/303250010/Weight-management-family-affair. Retrieved March 28, 2012.
7. Behen M. Your Health Family Makeover. Ladies Home Journal.http://www.lhj.com/health/family/a-healthy-family-makeover/?page=3. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
Labels: Adolescent Health, Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, Health Communication, Nutrition, Obesity, Orange, Physical Activity, Race and Health, Socioeconomic Status and Health, Violence
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home