Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Physician Body Mass Index and Bias Toward Obesity Documentation Patterns

Andrew C. Berry, Nicholas A. Berry, Travis S. Myers, Joseph Reznicek and Bruce B. Berry
Ochsner Journal March 2018, 18 (1) 66-71;
Andrew C. Berry
1Department of Medicine, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas A. Berry
2The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Travis S. Myers
3Department of Statistics and Human Performance, Ascension Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Reznicek
4Department of Medicine, Ascension Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce B. Berry
4Department of Medicine, Ascension Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Many healthcare professionals consider obese individuals to be unmotivated and to lack the willpower to follow through with weight-loss plans. This attitude may result in less effort put into diagnosing, documenting, and treating obesity. Our aim was to assess documentation patterns of obesity and hypertension overall, by primary care specialty, and in relation to provider body mass index (BMI).

Methods: Twenty-two physicians from one outpatient community practice were included: 10 internal medicine and 12 family practice practitioners. We conducted a retrospective review of medical records from a 1-year period to determine provider documentation of obesity and hypertension.

Results: A total of 3,275 obese patients were under the care of 6 physicians with normal BMI, yielding an obesity documentation rate of 23.2%. The 10 overweight physicians had 6,218 obese patients and a documentation rate of 33.5%. The 6 obese physicians had 4,014 patients with obesity and a documentation rate of 21.7%. Obesity documentation rates differed between nonobese physicians (BMI 20-29.9 kg/m2) (30.0%) and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) physicians (21.7%) (P<0.001). We found no difference (P=0.132) between documentation rates of normal-weight BMI physicians and obese physicians. The overall documentation rate of obesity (27.5%) was significantly different than the overall documentation rate of hypertension (83.3%) (P<0.001).

Conclusion: In our study, nonobese physicians were more likely to document obesity, and documentation of obesity lagged significantly in comparison to hypertension. Addressing weight loss in obese patients starts at the provider level. Steps include documenting obesity on the problem list and providing weight-loss advice during each patient encounter.

Keywords
  • Chronic disease
  • doctor-patient relationship
  • obesity
  • patient education
  • public health

INTRODUCTION

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States and worldwide. More than 36% of adults >20 years of age are obese, and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese.1-3 The prevalence of obesity has sharply increased since the 1980s when approximately 15% of adults aged 20-74 years in the United States were obese.4 Speculation for why the prevalence has increased includes wide access to calorie-dense food, conveniences of modern society, less physical work in activities of daily living, changes in wheat gluten, use of antibiotics in livestock and in humans, and changes in the human microbiome.4 Obesity is a serious health problem associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. Obese patients have an increased risk of death compared to normal-weight patients in all age groups and in both sexes.5,6 In the United States, obesity reduces life expectancy, particularly among young adults. Using data from the US life tables, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey II Mortality Study, Fontaine et al estimated the number of years of life lost from obesity.5 Young (20-30 years old), severely obese (body mass index [BMI] >45 kg/m2) black men on average can expect to lose 20 years of normal life expectancy, and black women lose 5 years. White men aged 20-30 years with a BMI >45 kg/m2 can expect to lose 13 years of normal life expectancy, while white women lose 8 years.5 Global assessments of the health problems responsible for the greatest burden of illness rank obesity as number 6, and in North America, obesity is second only to smoking in being responsible for the largest burden of illness.7

Many healthcare professionals consider obese persons to be unmotivated and noncompliant and to lack the willpower to follow through with weight-loss plans, so they may not emphasize weight-loss advice.8,9 Even though some surveys show patients are more likely to try to lose weight if they are advised to do so by their physicians,10,11 some physicians simply choose not to address obesity during an office encounter because they feel attempts at weight loss are futile.12 This bias against obesity may result in less effort put into diagnosing, documenting, and treating obesity. The bias against obesity involves many different types of health professionals and starts in medical school for many physicians.13-15 National obesity treatment guidelines identify assessment and management as the pillars of obesity treatment, and assessment must start with documentation of the disease on the problem list.16 Despite these guidelines, documentation rates of obesity in primary care visits remain low.17,18

With the widespread use of electronic medical records (EMRs), obesity documentation is readily available to most primary care providers. However, physicians do a poor job of documenting obesity in the EMR, with 19%-51% of obese patients having that diagnosis listed.17-20 In one study of 400 patients, physicians only documented 66% of obese patients as being obese, normal-weight physicians documented obesity at a higher rate than overweight physicians, and attending physicians documented obesity more frequently than residents.20 A survey of 500 primary care physicians found that documentation of obesity as a diagnosis was more likely to occur when the patient was perceived to have a BMI greater than that of the provider.21 Evidence indicates a bias associated with identifying, documenting, and treating obese patients.8,22 When obesity is diagnosed and documented, the physician is more likely to discuss a weight-loss plan with the patient, and if a physician advises weight loss, patients are more likely to try to lose weight.10,11,16,17,21,23

Meanwhile, hypertension affects 29% of adults and is the most frequently recorded outpatient chronic illness diagnosis, listed in 28.1% of office visits.24-26 The 2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey found that hypertension was the most common chronic medical condition recorded as an outpatient diagnosis.25 On the other hand, obesity, which affects 38% of the population,1,2 is only recorded as a diagnosis in 6.9% of chronic illness–related visits.25

We conducted a retrospective medical record review in a large group practice to analyze the documentation of obesity compared to the documentation of hypertension, another chronic health problem with similar morbidity. We also looked for patterns of obesity documentation in relation to physicians' BMI.

METHODS

Subjects

We obtained institutional review board approval, and informed consent was waived for the study. We also obtained approval from the medical group governing board, representing the complete group of 23 physicians: 11 internists and 12 family practice physicians. One internist was excluded from the analysis because of inconsistent use of the EMR. Physicians were asked to self-report their age, sex, and BMI. The Epic EMR reporting functions were used to identify obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) who had had at least one encounter with a study physician during the study period of June 1, 2013 through June 1, 2014. Patients had to be >18 years, alive, and not pregnant. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether obesity was or was not documented on their problem list.

Measurements

To look for a bias against documenting obesity, we investigated the documentation of another chronic medical disease, hypertension. Using the same study period and inclusion criteria, we identified all patients on antihypertensive medications. To determine if chronic illnesses were underdocumented in obese patients in general compared to nonobese patients, we generated reports showing the documentation patterns for hypertension in obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) hypertensive patients and in nonobese hypertensive patients. For analysis purposes, all patients taking an antihypertensive medication were considered to have hypertension. Some patients were taking antihypertensive medications for other reasons, so this methodology exaggerated the actual number of patients defined as having hypertension and lowered the documentation rate for hypertension because that number was used as the denominator for the documentation rate calculation.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software, z-tests of proportions, and chi-square test. Statistical significance was defined as P≤0.05.

RESULTS

Table 1 outlines the demographics of the physician providers. Overall documentation of obesity on the EMR problem list occurred for 27.5% of the 13,507 obese patients (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, 5,518 obese patients were under the care of the 10 internal medicine physicians, and 28.7% of them had obesity documented on the problem list. The 12 family practitioners had 7,989 obese patients under their care and documented 26.7% of them as obese on the problem list. This difference in obesity documentation rates was statistically significant (P=0.02).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Provider Demographics

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Obesity Documentation Rates by Physician Specialty and Body Mass Index (BMI)

A total of 3,275 obese patients were under the care of 6 physicians with a normal BMI (20-24.9 kg/m2), and those providers documented obesity for 760 patients, yielding a documentation rate of 23.2%. The 10 overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) physicians had 6,218 obese patients under their care and documented 2,086 of them as obese, for a rate of 33.5%. The 6 obese physicians had 4,014 obese patients and documented 872 of them, for a rate of 21.7%. We found a significant difference (P<0.001) between the nonobese (BMI 20-29.9 kg/m2) physicians' documentation of obesity (30.0%) and the obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) physicians' documentation rate (21.7%) but no significant difference in the documentation rates between normal-weight physicians (23.2%) and obese physicians (21.7%) (P=0.132).

The difference in documentation rates of hypertension in obese hypertensive patients (85.6%) and in nonobese hypertensive patients (80.9%) was significant (P<0.001) (Table 3). We also found a significant difference in the overall documentation rate of obesity (27.5%) compared with the overall documentation rate of hypertension (80.9%) in all patients for all providers (P<0.001) (Table 4). Overall, for obese patients, documentation of obesity severely lagged behind documentation of another chronic medical problem (hypertension) (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3

Hypertension Documentation Rates by Provider Specialty and Body Mass Index (BMI)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4

Documentation Comparison of Hypertension and Obesity in Obese and Nonobese Patients

DISCUSSION

Documentation rates of obesity were low in this sample of 22 primary care physicians' practices, with 13,507 patients (about 600 per physician) identified as obese in one year of encounters and only 27.5% of obese patients having obesity documented on their problem list. Because documentation may lead to higher rates of weight loss advice, and advice can lead to weight loss, documenting obesity is an important precursor to actual patient weight loss.10,11,27,28

Physicians with a normal or overweight BMI were more likely to document obesity than obese physicians, but this difference attained statistical significance only when normal and overweight physicians were grouped together as nonobese and compared to the obese physicians. These results are consistent with other studies that suggest physician BMI is a factor in documenting and addressing obesity. Prior studies suggest that documentation rates of obesity are low for several reasons, including a physician's own bias to recognize obesity. In addition, as stated previously, although most physicians believe obesity is a disease, they may not document it because they feel efforts at addressing obesity are futile.12

Overall documentation of obesity lagged significantly in comparison to hypertension. A bias against documenting hypertension in obese patients does not appear to be likely, as hypertension was documented 85.6% of the time in obese patients. Also unlikely is a general bias against documenting chronic health conditions in obese patients because the hypertension documentation rate was significantly (P<0.001) greater for obese patients than for nonobese patients (80.9%) (Table 3). This finding suggests that the bias in obese patients is for not documenting obesity. In our analysis, nonobese physicians (BMI 20-29.9 kg/m2) were more likely to document obesity than obese physicians (BMI ≥30 kg/m2).

One strength of our study design is the documentation rate of obesity. The rate was calculated by searching the Epic problem list for all types of obesity (morbid; nonmorbid; class 1, 2, 3) and using that number as the numerator. The denominator was the total number of obese patients found using the Epic automated BMI ≥30 kg/m2.

The calculation of the hypertension rate was less accurate. The numerator was the total number of Epic diagnosis codes for hypertension (principally I10.x and others too numerous to list) on the problem list, but the denominator could only be approximated by using the total number of patients taking antihypertensive medications. This approach is not precise because some patients take those medications for nonhypertension reasons such as beta blockers for atrial fibrillation, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for prevention of renal disease in diabetes, and alpha blockers for benign prostatic hypertrophy. The results of a side sampling of patients on antihypertensive medications but without hypertension on their problem list showed that approximately two-thirds of patients were on antihypertensive medications for nonhypertension reasons. If the normotensive patients were excluded from the denominator, our hypertension documentation rate would be higher, making the difference in documentation rates between obesity and hypertension even more significant. Our present methodology actually underestimates the documentation rate of hypertension in all groups.

In the version of Epic used by our study physicians, the preselected past history choices do not include obesity, one of the most prevalent diseases in society. Relatively rare conditions (prevalence <2%) such as sickle cell anemia,29 tuberculosis,30 and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome31 are preprogrammed into the software for documentation shortcuts, while obesity (prevalence 38%) is omitted.1 We recommend that the companies offering EMR systems take into account the prevalence of obesity and adapt the software to better assist providers with documenting obesity and selecting treatment modalities.

CONCLUSION

Addressing weight loss in obese patients starts at the provider level. Steps include documenting obesity on the problem list and providing weight-loss advice during each patient encounter. Randomized studies are needed to see if documenting obesity and giving weight-loss advice actually result in significant weight loss over time, as most data on the effectiveness of advice are from patient recall surveys and intention-to-change surveys. In addition, studies analyzing change in provider weight and change in obesity documentation patterns should be investigated.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, and Practice-Based Learning and Improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation 2018

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Ogden CL.,
    2. Carroll MD.,
    3. Fryar CD.,
    4. Flegal KM.
    Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2011-2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2015 11; 219: 1- 8.
  2. ↵
    1. Flegal KM.,
    2. Carroll MD.,
    3. Kit BK.,
    4. Ogden CL.
    Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. JAMA. 2012 2 1; 307 5: 491- 497. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.39. pmid:22253363
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Stevens GA.,
    2. Singh GM.,
    3. Lu Y.,
    4. et al.
    Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group (Body Mass Index). National, regional, and global trends in adult overweight and obesity prevalences. Popul Health Metr. 2012 11 20; 10 1: 22 doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-10-22. pmid:23167948
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Ng M.,
    2. Fleming T.,
    3. Robinson M.,
    4. et al.
    Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014 8 30; 384 9945: 766- 781. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60460-8. pmid:24880830
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Fontaine KR.,
    2. Redden, DT.,
    3. Wang C.,
    4. Westfall AO.,
    5. Allison DB.
    Years of life lost due to obesity. JAMA. 2003 1 8; 289 2: 187- 193. pmid:12517229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Adams KF.,
    2. Schatzkin A.,
    3. Harris TB.,
    4. et al.
    Overweight, obesity, and mortality in a large prospective cohort of persons 50 to 71 years old. N Engl J Med. 2006 8 24; 355 8: 763- 778. pmid:16926275
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Lim SS.,
    2. Vos T.,
    3. Flaxman AD.,
    4. et al.
    A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012 12 15; 380 9859: 2224- 2260. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8. pmid:23245609
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Puhl RM.,
    2. Heuer, CA.
    The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009 5; 17 5: 941- 964. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.636. pmid:19165161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ma J.,
    2. Xiao L.,
    3. Stafford RS.
    Underdiagnosis of obesity in adults in US outpatient settings. Arch Intern Med. 2009 2 9; 169 3: 313- 314. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.582. pmid:19204224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Post RE.,
    2. Mainous AG 3rd.,
    3. Gregorie SH.,
    4. Knoll ME.,
    5. Diaz VA.,
    6. Saxena SK.
    The influence of physician acknowledgment of patients' weight status on patient perceptions of overweight and obesity in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2011 2 28; 171 4: 316- 321. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.549. pmid:21357807
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Pool AC.,
    2. Kraschnewski JL.,
    3. Cover LA.,
    4. et al.
    The impact of physician weight discussion on weight loss in US adults. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Mar-Apr; 8 2: e131- 139. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2013.03.003. pmid:24743008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Kushner RF.
    Tackling obesity: is primary care up to the challenge? Arch Intern Med. 2010 1 25; 170 2: 121- 123. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.479. pmid:20101005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Miller DP Jr.,
    2. Spangler JG.,
    3. Vitolins MZ.,
    4. et al.
    Are medical students aware of their anti-obesity bias? Acad Med. 2013 7; 88 7: 978- 982. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f817. pmid:23702519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Phelan SM.,
    2. Puhl RM.,
    3. Burke SE.,
    4. et al.
    The mixed impact of medical school on medical students' implicit and explicit weight bias. Med Educ. 2015 10; 49 10: 983- 992. doi: 10.1111/medu.12770. pmid:26383070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Teachman BA.,
    2. Brownell KD.
    Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: is anyone immune? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 10; 25 10: 1525- 1531. pmid:11673776
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Jensen MD.,
    2. Ryan DH.,
    3. Apovian CM.,
    4. et al.
    5. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
    6. Obesity Society
    2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 1; 63 25 Pt B: 2985- 3023. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.004. pmid:24239920
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Pagoto S.,
    2. Ockene J.
    Windows of opportunity for smoking and weight loss counseling. Arch Intern Med. 2009 2 9; 169 3: 217- 218. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.541. pmid:19204210
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Muo IM.,
    2. Sacajiu G.,
    3. Kunins H.,
    4. Deluca J.
    Effect of the availability of weight and height data on the frequency of primary care physicians' documented BMI, diagnoses and management of overweight and obesity. Qual Prim Care. 2013; 21 4: 221- 228. pmid:24041139
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Bardia A.,
    2. Holtan SG.,
    3. Slezak JM.,
    4. Thompson WG.
    Diagnosis of obesity by primary care physicians and impact on obesity management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 8; 82 8: 927- 932. pmid:17673060
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Bordowitz R.,
    2. Morland K.,
    3. Reich D.
    The use of an electronic medical record to improve documentation and treatment of obesity. Fam Med. 2007 4; 39 4: 274- 279. pmid:17401772
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Baer HJ.,
    2. Karson AS.,
    3. Soukup JR.,
    4. Williams DH.,
    5. Bates DW.
    Documentation and diagnosis of overweight and obesity in electronic health records of adult primary care patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 9 23; 173 17: 1648- 1652. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7815. pmid:23835808
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Thapa R.,
    2. Friderici J.,
    3. Kleppel R.,
    4. Fitzgerald J.,
    5. Rothberg MB.
    Do physicians underrecognize obesity? South Med J. 2014 6; 107 6: 356- 360. doi: 10.14423/01.SMJ.0000450707.44388.0c. pmid:24945167
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Bleich SN.,
    2. Bennett WL.,
    3. Gudzune KA.,
    4. Cooper LA.
    Impact of physician BMI on obesity care and beliefs. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 5; 20 5: 999- 1005. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.402. pmid:22262162
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: with special feature on racial and ethnic health disparities. Table 53. Hyattsville, MD https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2016.
  23. ↵
    1. Hing E.,
    2. Rui P.,
    3. Palso K.
    National ambulatory medical care survey: 2013 state and national survey tables. Table 19. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2013_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2016.
  24. ↵
    1. Ashman JJ.,
    2. Rui P.,
    3. Schappert SM.
    Age differences in visits to office-based physicians by adults with hypertension: United States, 2013. NCHS Data Brief. 2016 11; 263: 1- 8.
  25. ↵
    1. Bleich SN.,
    2. Pickett-Blakely O.,
    3. Cooper LA.
    Physician practice patterns of obesity diagnosis and weight-related counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 1; 82 1: 123- 129. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.018. pmid:20303691
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Waring ME.,
    2. Roberts MB.,
    3. Parker DR.,
    4. Eaton CB.
    Documentation and management of overweight and obesity in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009 Sep-Oct; 22 5: 544- 552. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080173. pmid:19734401
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Sickle Cell Disease (SCD): Data and Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/data.html. Updated August 31, 2016. Accessed June 15, 2016.
  28. ↵
    Tuberculosis (TB). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/default.html. Accessed June 15, 2016.
  29. ↵
    HIV/AIDS: Basic Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics.html. Accessed June 15, 2016.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 18, Issue 1
Mar 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physician Body Mass Index and Bias Toward Obesity Documentation Patterns
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Physician Body Mass Index and Bias Toward Obesity Documentation Patterns
Andrew C. Berry, Nicholas A. Berry, Travis S. Myers, Joseph Reznicek, Bruce B. Berry
Ochsner Journal Mar 2018, 18 (1) 66-71;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Physician Body Mass Index and Bias Toward Obesity Documentation Patterns
Andrew C. Berry, Nicholas A. Berry, Travis S. Myers, Joseph Reznicek, Bruce B. Berry
Ochsner Journal Mar 2018, 18 (1) 66-71;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Reduction in Opioid Requirements Following Changes to Regional Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty
  • 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Models of the Aortic Arch for Advanced Visualization of Complex Neurointerventional Cases
  • Accuracy of Perfusion Index and Perfusion Index Ratio as a Predictor of a Successful Low Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: A Prospective Observational Study
Show more ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • chronic disease
  • doctor-patient relationship
  • obesity
  • patient education
  • public health

Ochsner Journal Blog

Current Post

Be Careful Where You Publish -- Part 2

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2025 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire