Rita McWilliams

Fatty, Fatty, Two-by-Four: Weight-Teasing History and Disturbed Eating in Young Adult Women

OBJECTIVE We investigated the long-term effect of weight teasing during childhood. METHODS Young adult women (n = 1533; aged 18-26 years) from 3 large universities participated in a survey (Fall 2009 to Spring 2010) that assessed disturbed eating behaviors; weight status at ages 6, 12, and 16 years; and weight-teasing history. RESULTS Nearly half of the participants were weight-teased as a child. Participants who experienced childhood weight teasing were significantly more likely to have disturbed eating behaviors now than non-weight-teased peers. As the variety of weight teasing insults recalled increased, so did disturbed eating behaviors and current body mass index. Those who recalled their weight at ages 6, 12, or 16 years as being heavier than average endured weight teasing significantly more frequently and felt greater distress than their lighter counterparts. CONCLUSIONS Weight teasing may contribute to the development of disturbed eating and eating disorders in young women. Health care professionals, parents, teachers, and other childcare givers must help shift social norms to make weight teasing as unacceptable as other types of bullying. To protect the health of children, efforts to make weight teasing unacceptable are warranted.

Concept Paper: A Virtual Centralized IRB System

Context: As the volume and complexity of research have increased, the amount of time spent on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review has decreased. The complexity of research has expanded, requiring increasingly specialized knowledge to review it. Dilemma: Under the current system, increasing numbers of research studies requiring expertise in ethics, new technologies or diverse study designs place a substantial burden upon local IRBs and often result in substantial variability among their reviews. This lack of uniformity in the review process creates uneven human subjects’ protection thus undermining the intent of the Common Rule. Objectives: To outline a scenario for expert centralized IRB review via implementation of a national virtual IRB review system overseen by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Conclusions: The complicated ethical issues and science involved in much of current research warrant an expert review panel. Centralized review would enable expert review specific to the research at hand, ensure consistency in human subjects protection, reduce the burden on local IRBs, and may reduce time spent obtaining approval. A centralized virtual system would allow IRB members to remain at their institutions while providing unprecedented expert review through currently available technology, and make information regarding monitoring and adverse event reporting available online in real-time. Dr. McWilliams, an epidemiologist, provided the original idea and wrote the article. Mr. Hebden provided the technological expertise for the article and edited the article. Dr. Gilpin provided legal and ethical expertise and edited the article.