Summary
The BODY‐Q is a patient‐reported outcome measure used to assess outcomes in patients undergoing weight loss and/or body contouring surgery (BC) following massive weight loss. Normative values for the BODY‐Q are needed to improve data interpretation and enable comparison. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine normative values for the BODY‐Q. Participants were recruited internationally through two crowdsourcing platforms. The participants were invited to complete the BODY‐Q scales through an URL link provided within the crowdsourcing platforms. General linear analyses were performed to compare normative means between countries and continents adjusted for relevant covariates. Normative reference values were stratified by age, body mass index (BMI), and gender. The BODY‐Q was completed by 4051 (2052 North American and 1999 European) participants. The mean age was 36 years (±14.7 SD) and ranged from 17 to 76 years, the mean BMI was 26.4 (±6.7 SD) kg/m2, and the sample consisted of 1996 (49.3%) females and 2023 (49.9%) males. Younger age and higher BMI were negatively associated with all BODY‐Q scales (p < .001). This study provides normative values for the BODY‐Q scales to aid in the interpretation of BODY‐Q scores in research and clinical practise. These values enable us to understand the impact of weight loss and BC on patients' lives.
Keywords: bariatric surgery, body contouring, general population norms, normative scores, patient‐reported outcome measure, patient‐reported outcomes, quality of life, weight loss surgery
What is already known about this subject
The BODY‐Q is the psychometrically strongest, reliable, and responsive patient‐reported outcome measure for use in weight loss and/or body contouring surgery.
There is a lack of available general population norms for the BODY‐Q as a reference point of patient's level of satisfaction with appearance, health‐related quality of life (HRQL), and eating‐related concerns.
What this study adds
International general population normative scores generated from 4051 (2052 North American and 1999 European) participants for the following BODY‐Q domains: appearance, HRQL, and eating‐related concerns.
First population norms of the BODY‐Q scales to provide clinically relevant reference points for the interpretation of the BODY‐Q.
Normative scores enable us to understand the impact of weight loss and body contouring surgery following massive weight loss for research, future clinical care, and healthcare policy.
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 1975, obesity has tripled with over 650 million people worldwide living with obesity. 1 Weight loss interventions, including lifestyle, medical, and surgical treatments, all aim to achieve long‐term weight loss and remission of obesity‐related co‐morbidities. 2 , 3 However, massive weight loss often leads to people having varying amounts of excess skin, where subsequent body contouring surgery (BC) is needed. 4 , 5 , 6 To facilitate evidence‐based and patient‐centred care, understanding the impact of different weight loss treatments and subsequent BC on patients' lives is pivotal to optimising outcomes. 7
Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) are questionnaires used to measure health outcomes from the patient's perspective. To accurately measure patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) validated, reliable and responsive condition‐specific PROMs are needed. 8 Over the past decade, a vast array of PROMs have been used in weight loss and BC, many of which do not possess strong evidence of reliability and validity for the patient population. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 The BODY‐Q, introduced in 2016 is a rigorously developed and psychometrically validated PROM that measures outcomes of patients who undergo weight loss and/or BC. 4 , 13 , 14 , 15 The BODY‐Q was developed following internationally recommended guidelines for PROM development and used a modern psychometric approach to measure concepts that matter most to patients. The conceptual framework covers four domains: appearance, health‐related quality of life (HRQL), experience of health care, and eating‐related concerns. 12 , 14 , 16 The four domains are organised into independently functioning scales (Figure 1), allowing the researchers and clinicians to administer the scale(s) that is most relevant to their practise or research question and reducing overall burden on patients. 17 The BODY‐Q has been shown to be responsive to change and subsequently, can be used to measure change over the entire weight loss trajectory, i.e., from obesity to weight loss with or without BC. 14 , 18 , 19
FIGURE 1.
BODY‐Q Framework 17
Since its development, the BODY‐Q has been increasingly used worldwide. 4 , 5 , 6 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 Recent systematic reviews based on the Consensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology recommended the BODY‐Q as the psychometrically strongest PROM for use in weight loss, particularly in bariatric surgery (BaS) and BC. 12 , 13 However, a current limitation of the BODY‐Q is the lack of available general population norms as a reference point of the levels of satisfaction with appearance, eating‐related concerns, and HRQL. Although the BODY‐Q has been used to demonstrate the efficacy of weight loss therapy and BC, 4 , 22 it is not yet known how published preoperative and postoperative scores compare to population norms. Scores from the general population would enable a better understanding of HRQL of obesity and change through the weight loss trajectory.
The primary aim of this study was to determine BODY‐Q scores for the general population as reference values for comparative purposes in research and clinical use. The secondary aim was to compare normative scores for North America and Europe, and to investigate associations between BODY‐Q scores and age, gender, and body mass index (BMI).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted an international study to collect BODY‐Q scores from the general population in a total of 12 countries in North America and Europe. The European sample was approved by the Danish data protection agency. In Denmark, ethical approval is not required for survey‐based studies. The North American study sample was approved by the institutional review board (Mass General Brigham [MGB] Institutional Review Board [IRB], United States [US]). All data and informed consent were obtained electronically in accordance with the Danish data protection agency and the MGB IRB.
2.1. Recruitment of participants
Participants (18 years and older) were recruited through the crowdsourcing platforms in September 2020 for Prolific Academic (www.prolific.co) 25 and February 2021 for Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (www.MTurk.com). 26 Through an URL link provided within Prolific and MTurk, participants were invited to read a study information letter and if interested in the study to complete the BODY‐Q in their own language on an electronic survey platform, the REDCap survey platform. Participants were compensated per their institutional policies and a minimum of 6.50 USD per hour for completing the surveys. The following countries were included in North America and Europe: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and United States.
2.2. Demographic variables
The following demographic variables were collected: age, gender, weight, height, ethnicity (White or other), marital status, educational level, and employment status. Data were collected on weather participants had undergone prior weight loss treatments including diet, behaviour, lifestyle‐management changes, weight loss medications, endoscopic procedure, and BaS and/or prior BC procedure. Participants were also asked if they had any of the following co‐morbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritic disease, cardiovascular disease, and reflux disease.
2.3. The BODY‐Q
The BODY‐Q was originally developed in English and field‐tested in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The development involved a literature review, qualitative and cognitive interviews with patients, and expert input. 14 , 16 , 18 , 27 , 28 , 29 Currently, the scales have been translated into 19 languages for use in the following countries: Arabic Speaking Countries (Modern Standard), Belgium, Brazil, China (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan), Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, and Sweden. All translations followed recommended guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and/or the World Health Organization. 17 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34
The BODY‐Q scales that measure appearance, HRQL, and eating‐related concerns domain, were used to determine normative scores from the general population. For the appearance domain, 12 scales were included: body, abdomen, arms, back, buttocks, hips and outer thighs, inner thighs, chest, nipples, stretch marks, excess skin, and cellulite. For the HRQL domain, seven scales were included: psychological, physical, social, sexual, body image, work, and appearance distress. All three scales from the eating‐related concerns domain were included: eating symptoms (e.g., vomiting, reflux, dumping), eating‐related distress (e.g., feeling ashamed or out of control after eating), and eating behaviour (e.g., stop eating before feeling full, avoiding unhealthy snacks) scales. 14 , 16 , 27 , 29
Each scale has between four and 10 items. Items are scored on a Likert scale from 1 (e.g., very dissatisfied) to 4 (e.g., very satisfied). The summed raw scores in a scale are transformed to scores between 0 and 100 using Rasch converted scoring tables. For all but one scale (exeption appearance distress) higher scores indicate a better outcome. Items with missing data can be scored by applying the mean of the completed items as long as at least half of the items are completed. 15 , 18 , 19 , 35
2.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Version 27.0 statistical software (IBM Corp.) and figures were made in GraphPad Prism 8.0 (Graphpad Software).
Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation (SD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed for continuous variables, while proportions were computed for categorical variables. Continuous and categorical non dichotomous variables were transformed into dichotomous variables. We created following age groups: 17–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, >60 years, and BMI was grouped: <18.5, 18.50–24.9, 25–29.9, 30–34.9, 35–39.9, >40. Depending on the distribution of data and normality assumptions, the Rasch converted mean scores of all scales for each country were compared using a general linear model. The model was adjusted for relevant covariates: age, gender, BMI, ethnicity, educational level, employment, marital status, comorbidities, and weight loss treatment. The Bonferroni test was applied to account for multiple testing. For each country and continent, the means, standard error (SE), 95% CI, minimum and maximum scores, and p values were computed. For the total scores of all normative participants, means, SD, 95% CI, and p values were computed. In addition to the normative values for each scale, the mean scores were stratified according to age and BMI groups by gender after adjusting for the following covariates: comorbidities, educational level, employment, ethnicity, marital status, and weight loss treatment. These reference scores were summarised as means for use as reference standards.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demographics
A total of 4051 (2052 North American and 1999 European) participants completed the study survey. The mean age of participants was 36 years (±14.7 SD) and ranged from 17 to 76 years. The mean BMI was 26.4 (±6.7 SD) kg/m2. In the sample 1996 (49.3%) participants identified as female, 2023 (49.9%) identified as male, and 32 (0.8%) identified as another gender. The full demographic data are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Demographics
| Characteristics | Total (4051) | North America (2052) | Europe (1999) | USA (1980) | Canada (72) | Denmark (159) | Netherlands (208) | Sweden (209) | England (207) | Poland (210) | Italy (204) | Belgium (178) | France (213) | Finland (206) | Germany (205) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Female | 1996 (49.3) | 1191 (58.0) | 805 (40.3) | 1143 (57.7) | 48 (66.7) | 43 (27.0) | 84 (40.4) | 61 (29.2) | 159 (76.8) | 60 (28.6) | 99 (48.5) | 53 (29.8) | 90 (42.3) | 79 (38.3) | 77 (37.6) |
| Male | 2023 (49.9) | 849 (41.4) | 1174 (58.7) | 825 (41.7) | 24 (33.3) | 115 (72.3) | 124 (59.6) | 147 (70.3) | 48 (23.2) | 147 (70) | 102 (50.0) | 123 (69.1) | 122 (57.3) | 120 (58.3) | 126 (61.2) |
| Other | 32 (0.8) | 12 (0.6) | 20 (1.0) | 12 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.5) | 2 (1.1) | 1 (0.5) | 7 (3.4) | 2 (1.0) |
| Age | |||||||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 36.03 (14.36) | 43.08 (14.65) | 28.79 (9.72) | 42.61 (14.64) | 55.81 (7.20) | 28.07 (8.60) | 27.13 (9.67) | 29.35 (8.68) | 35.92 (13.58) | 23.6 (6.79) | 26.94 (8.26) | 28.39 (7.82) | 29.59 (9.82) | 28.86 (8.20) | 29.84 (9.23) |
| Minimum; maximum | 17; 76 | 18; 76 | 17; 74 | 18; 76 | 28; 73 | 18; 66 | 18; 74 | 17; 61 | 18; 74 | 17.0; 61.0 | 18; 61 | 18; 58 | 18; 71 | 17; 58 | 17; 65 |
| Age group | |||||||||||||||
| 17–29 | 1773 (43.7) | 507 (24.7) | 1266 (63.3) | 506 (25.6) | 1 (1.4) | 100 (62.9) | 155 (47.5) | 123 (58.9) | 77 (37.2) | 177 (84.3) | 153 (75.0) | 117 (65.7) | 129 (16.6) | 123 (59.7) | 112 (54.6) |
| 30–39 | 870 (21.5) | 384 (18.7) | 486 (24.3) | 384 (19.4) | 0 (0) | 46 (28.9) | 30 (14.4) | 60 (28.7) | 65 (31.4) | 25 (11.9) | 33 (16.2) | 47 (26.4) | 55 (25.8) | 60 (29.1) | 65 (31.7) |
| 40–49 | 508 (12.5) | 360 (17.5) | 148 (7.4) | 347 (17.5) | 13 (18.1) | 8 (5.0) | 13 (6.3) | 16 (7.7) | 29 (14.0) | 6 (2.9) | 11 (5.4) | 10 (5.6) | 18 (8.5) | 18 (8.7) | 19 (9.3) |
| 50–59 | 581 (14.3) | 516 (25.1) | 65 (3.3) | 477 (24.1) | 39 (54.2) | 3 (1.9) | 6 (2.9) | 9 (4.3) | 18 (8.7) | 1 (0.5) | 6 (2.9) | 4 (2.2) | 7 (3.3) | 5 (2.4) | 6 (2.9) |
| 60–69 | 319 (7.9) | 285 (13.9) | 34 (1.7) | 266 (13.4) | 19 (26.4) | 2 (0.3) | 4 (1.9) | 1 (0.5) | 18 (8.7) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 0(0) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 3 (1.5) |
| BMI | |||||||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 26.37 (6.67) | 28.14 (7.43) | 24.55 (5.19) | 28.08 (7.44) | 29.56 (7.25) | 24.84 (5.16) | 24.30 (4.93) | 25.33 (5.68) | 26.19 (6.13) | 23.7 (4.57) | 23.33 (4.22) | 24.26 (5.17) | 23.38 (4.66) | 25.15 (5.18) | 25.11 (5.30) |
| Minimum; maximum | 15.40; 72.70 | 16.16; 72.17 | 15.40; 54.07 | 16.16; 72.70 | 19.14; 57.04 | 15.77; 44.66 | 15.71; 47.66 | 15.79; 49.48 | 16.05; 54.07 | 15.96; 44.73 | 16.42; 40.79 | 15.40; 45.33 | 15.85; 40.64 | 16.40; 44.71 | 17.44; 47.45 |
| BMI groups | |||||||||||||||
| <18.5 | 194 (4.8) | 61 (3.0) | 133 (6.7) | 61 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 9 (5.7) | 14 (6.3) | 8 (3.8) | 14 (6.8) | 19 (9.0) | 13 (6.4) | 13 (7.3) | 28 (13.1) | 9 (4.4) | 7 (3.4) |
| 18.5–25 | 1913 (47.2) | 766 (37.3) | 1047 (75.4) | 744 (37.6) | 22 (30.6) | 91 (57.2) | 127 (16.1) | 111 (53.0) | 91 (4.4) | 133 (36.3) | 136 (66.7) | 101 (56.7) | 124 (58.2) | 113 (55.1) | 120 (58.5) |
| 25–30 | 1039 (25.6) | 588 (28.6) | 451 (22.6) | 564 (28.5) | 24 (33.3) | 33 (20.8) | 39 (18.8) | 61 (29.2) | 55 (26.6) | 38 (18.1) | 39 (19.1) | 41 (23.0) | 40 (18.8) | 55 (26.8) | 50 (24.4) |
| 30–35 | 494 (12.2) | 328 (16.0) | 166 (8.3) | 313 (15.8) | 15 (20.8) | 16 (10.1) | 22 (10.6) | 14 (6.7) | 27 (13.7) | 14 (6.7) | 11 (5.4) | 14 (7.9) | 14 (6.6) | 17 (8.3) | 17 (8.3) |
| 35–40 | 224 (5.5.) | 153 (7.5) | 71 (3.6) | 151 (7.6) | 2 (2.8) | 8 (5.0) | 6 (2.9) | 8 (3.8) | 16 (7.7) | 5 (2.4) | 4 (2.0) | 5 (2.8) | 5 (2.3) | 7 (3.4) | 7 (3.4) |
| >40 | 187 (4.6) | 157 (7.6) | 30 (1.5) | 148 (7.5) | 9 (12.5) | 2 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | 7 (3.3) | 4 (1.9) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 4 (2.2) | 2 (0.9) | 4 (2.0) | 4 (2.0) |
| Comorbidities n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Diabetes | 199 (4.9) | 152 (7.4) | 47 (2.3) | 143 (7.2) | 9 (12.5) | 5 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 9 (4.3) | 4 (1.9) | 13 (6.2) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (1.4) | 5 (2.4) | 5 (2.4) |
| Hypertension | 466 (11.5) | 395 (19.2) | 71 (3.5) | 370 (18.7) | 25 (34.7) | 4 (2.5) | 3 (1.4) | 7 (3.3) | 10 (4.8) | 12 (5.7) | 4 (2.0) | 9 (5.0) | 7 (3.3) | 6 (2.9) | 9 (4.4) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 264 (6.5) | 225 (11.0) | 39 (1.9) | 112 (10.7) | 13 (18.1) | 1 (0.6) | 5 (2.4) | 2 (1.0) | 4 (1.9) | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.5) | 5 (2.8) | 9 (4.2) | 4 (1.9) | 3 (1.5) |
| Obstructive sleep apnea | 184 (4.5) | 156 (7.6) | 28 (1.4) | 148 (7.5) | 8 (11.1) | 2 (1.3) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 2 (1.0) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 5 (2.8) | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.5) | 3 (1.5) |
| Osteoarthritic disease | 259 (6.4) | 227 (11.1) | 32 (1.6) | 211 (10.7) | 16 (22.2) | 0 (0) | 7 (3.4) | 2 (1.0) | 10 (4.8) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (1.0) | 1 (0.6) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) | 5 (2.4) |
| Cardiovascular disease | 64 (1.6) | 44 (2.1) | 20 (1.0) | 44 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.0) | 3 (1.4) | 5 (2.4) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 3 (1.5) |
| Reflux disease | 473 (11.7) | 307 (15.0) | 166 (8.3) | 290 (14.6) | 17 (23.6) | 14 (8.8) | 20 (9.6) | 17 (8.1) | 18 (8.6) | 8 (3.8) | 19 (9.3) | 27 (15.1) | 16 (7.5) | 14 (6.8) | 13 (6.3) |
| No medical condition | 2881 (71) | 1220 (59.5) | 1161 (82.9) | 1194 (63.0) | 26 (36.1) | 135 (84.9) | 169 (81.3) | 177 (84.7) | 171 (81.8) | 175 (82.9) | 173 (84.9) | 137 (76.5) | 172 (80.8) | 179 (86.9) | 173 (84.0) |
| Educational level n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Attending high school | 114 (2.8) | 10 (0.5) | 104 (5.2) | 10(0.5) | 8 (11.1) | 15 (9.4) | 2 (1.0) | 11 (5.3) | 9 (4.3) | 30 (14.3) | 8 (3.9) | 2 (1.1) | 8 (3.8) | 12 (5.8) | 7 (3.4) |
| High school diploma | 684 (16.9) | 232 (11.3) | 452 (22.6) | 224 (11.3) | 17 (23.6) | 73 (45.9) | 49 (23.6) | 64 (30.6) | 22 (10.6) | 43 (20.5) | 85 (41.7) | 31 (17.4) | 21 (9.9) | 30 (14.6) | 34 (16.5) |
| Some college‐, trade‐, or university degree | 972 (24.0) | 567 (27.6) | 405 (20.3) | 550 (27.8) | 35 (48.6) | 12 (7.5) | 54 (26.0) | 16 (7.7) | 60 (29.1) | 78 (37.1) | 20 (9.8) | 25 (14.0) | 29 (13.6) | 57 (27.7) | 54 (26.2) |
| Completed college, trade or university | 1330 (32.8) | 845 (41.2) | 485 (24.3) | 810 (40.9) | 2 (2.8) | 24 (15.1) | 56 (26.9) | 53 (25.4) | 84 (40.6) | 25 (11.9) | 42 (20.6) | 46 (25.8) | 66 (31.0) | 42 (20.4) | 47 (22.8) |
| Some master or doctoral degree | 315 (7.8) | 95 (4.6) | 220 (11.0) | 93 (4.7) | 9 (12.5) | 25 (15.7) | 15 (7.2) | 60 (28.7) | 11 (5.3) | 10 (4.8) | 12 (5.9) | 14 (7.9) | 35 (16.4) | 16 (7.8) | 22 (10.7) |
| Completed masters or doctoral degree | 596 (14.7) | 299 (14.6) | 297 (14.9) | 219 (14.6) | 1 (1.4) | 10 (6.3) | 31 (14.9) | 5 (2.4) | 21 (10.1) | 23 (11.0) | 31 (15.2) | 58 (32.6) | 54 (25.4) | 24 (11.7) | 40 (19.4) |
| Other | 40 (1.0) | 4 (0.2) | 36 (1.8) | 3 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.4) | 6 (2.9) | 2 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 25 (12.1) | 1 (0.5) |
| Employment n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Full time >35 h per week | 1541 (38.0) | 879 (42.8) | 662 (33.0) | 856 (43.2) | 23 (31.9) | 50 (31.4) | 58 (27.9) | 75 (35.9) | 64 (30.6) | 59 (28.0) | 46 (22.5) | 81 (45.3) | 94 (44.1) | 64 (31.1) | 71 (34.5) |
| Part time <35 h per week | 576 (14.2) | 291 (14.2) | 285 (14.2) | 278 (14.0) | 13 (18.1) | 26 (16.4) | 55 (26.4) | 27 (12.9) | 44 (21.1) | 17 (8.1) | 20 (9.8) | 18 (10.1) | 21 (9.9) | 33 (16.0) | 24 (11.7) |
| Unemployed (currently looking for work) | 325 (8.0) | 137 (6.7) | 188 (9.4) | 131 (6.6) | 6 (8.3) | 14 (8.8) | 17 (8.2) | 28 (13.4) | 20 (9.6) | 24 (11.4) | 23 (11.3) | 14 (7.8) | 9 (4.2) | 22 (10.7) | 17 (8.3) |
| Unemployed (currently not looking for work) | 116 (2.9) | 51 (2.5) | 65 (3.2) | 49 (2.5) | 2 (2.8) | 3 (1.9) | 7 (3.4) | 9 (4.3) | 10 (4.8) | 12 (5.7) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) | 9 (4.2) | 6 (2.9) | 6 (2.9) |
| Self‐employed | 425 (10.5) | 292 (14.2) | 133 (6.6) | 286 (14.4) | 6 (8.3) | 5 (3.1) | 19 (9.1) | 11 (5.3) | 13 (6.2) | 12 (5.7) | 15 (7.4) | 6 (3.4) | 18 (8.5) | 16 (7.8) | 18 (8.7) |
| Volunteer | 50 (1.2) | 26 (1.3) | 24 (1.2) | 26 (1.3) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.3) | 5 (2.4) | 3 (1.4) | 0 (0) | 4 (1.9) | 4 (2.0) | 1 (0.6) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0) |
| Student | 880 (21.7) | 158 (7.7) | 722 (36.0) | 158 (8.0) | 0 (0) | 63 (39.6) | 94 (45.2) | 68 (32.5) | 26 (12.4) | 100 (47.4) | 106 (52.0) | 57 (31.8) | 55 (25.8) | 78 (37.9) | 75 (36.4) |
| Retired | 202 (5.0) | 176 (8.6) | 26 (1.3) | 160 (8.1) | 16 (22.2) | 3 (1.9) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 15 (7.2) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.0) |
| Unable to work | 126 (3.1) | 88 (4.3) | 38 (1.9) | 84 (4.2) | 4 (5.6) | 4 (2.5) | 3 (1.4) | 9 (4.3) | 8 (3.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (1.4) | 5 (2.4) | 4 (1.9) |
| Caring for home or family | 195 (4.8) | 135 (6.6) | 60 (3.0) | 130 (6.6) | 5 (6.9) | 4 (2.5) | 2 (1.0) | 5 (2.4) | 18 (8.6) | 3 (1.4) | 5 (2.5) | 3 (1.7) | 4 (1.9) | 7 (3.4) | 9 (4.4) |
| Others | 23 (0.6) | 9 (0.4) | 14 (0.7) | 7 (0.4) | 2 (2.8) | 2 (1.3) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.0) | 1 (0.5) |
| Race n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| White | 3560 (87.9) | 1716 (83.6) | 1844 (92.2) | 1651 (83.4) | 56 (90.3) | 145 (91.2) | 180 (86.5) | 192 (91.9) | 178 (86.4) | 209 (99.5) | 185 (90.7) | 165 (92.2) | 194 (91.1) | 197 (95.6) | 198 (96.1) |
| Other | 336 (8.3) | 336 (16.4) | 155 (7.8) | 329 (16.6) | 7 (9.7) | 14 (8.8) | 28 (13.5) | 17 (8.1) | 28 (14.6) | 1 (0.4) | 19 (9.3) | 13 (7.3) | 19 (8.9) | 9 (4.4) | 7 (3.4) |
| Marital status n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Married | 1138 (28.1) | 825 (40.2) | 313 (15.7) | 792 (40.0) | 33 (45.8) | 27 (17.0) | 29 (13.8) | 37 (17.7) | 63 (30.6) | 63 (30.5) | 20 (9.8) | 27 (15.1) | 30 (14.1) | 32 (15.5) | 30 (14.6) |
| Living common law | 548 (13.5) | 142 (6.9) | 406 (20.3) | 135 (6.8) | 7 (9.7) | 55 (34.6) | 40 (19.2) | 16 (7.7) | 37 (18.0) | 37 (17.9) | 23 (11.3) | 38 (21.2) | 47 (22.1) | 52 (25.2) | 18 (8.7) |
| Widowed | 48 (1.2) | 44 (2.1) | 4 (0.2) | 40 (2.0) | 4 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 5 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) |
| Separated | 52 (1.3) | 32 (1.6) | 20 (1.0) | 28 (1.4) | 4 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.4) | 4 (1.9) | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.6) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0) |
| Divorced | 262 (6.5) | 233 (11.4) | 29 (1.5) | 222 (11.2) | 11 (15.3) | 2 (1.3) | 1 (0.4) | 4 (1.9) | 10 (4.9) | 10 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 4 (2.2) | 3 (1.4) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| Single | 2003 (49.4) | 776 (37.8) | 1227 (61.4) | 763 (38.5) | 13 (18.1) | 75 (47.2) | 133 (63.8) | 148 (70.8) | 91 (44.2) | 92 (44.4) | 159 (77.9) | 108 (60.3) | 130 (61.0) | 115 (55.8) | 157 (76.2) |
| Weight loss treatment n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| None | 783 (22.4) | 197 (13.2) | 586 (29.3) | 191 (13.3) | 6 (10.3) | 41 (25.8) | 67 (32.2) | 57 (27.3) | 37 (17.9) | 66 (31.4) | 70 (34.3) | 65 (31.5) | 47 (34.7) | 62 (40.1) | 56 (27.3) |
| Tried to lose weight myself | 2236 (64.1) | 1017 (68.3) | 1219 (61.0) | 979 (68.4) | 48 (65.5) | 113 (71.1) | 132 (63.5) | 128 (61.2) | 140 (67.6) | 124 (59.0) | 98 (48.0) | 101 (65.7) | 120 (65.3) | 132 (62.1) | 131 (63.9) |
| Weight loss program | 371 (10.6) | 200 (13.4) | 171 (8.6) | 194 (13.5) | 6 (10.3) | 4 (2.5) | 6 (2.9) | 20 (9.6) | 27 (13.0) | 17 (8.1) | 35 (17.2) | 19 (10.7) | 16 (7.5) | 9 (4.4) | 18 (8.8) |
| Weight loss medication | 68 (1.9) | 54 (3.6) | 14 (0.7) | 51 (3.6) | 3 (5.2) | 0(0) | 1 (0.5) | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.4) | 2 (1.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 3 (1.4) | 1(0.5) | 0 (0) |
| Endoscopic procedure | 2 (0.1) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0(0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) |
| Bariatric surgery | 16 (0.5) | 16 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 15 (1.0) | 1 (1.7) | 0 (0) | 0(0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Other | 13 (0.4) | 6 (0.4) | 7 (0.4) | 2 (1.0) | 4 (6.9) | 1(0.6) | 2 (1.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 1(0.5) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.05) | 0 (0) |
| Excess skin n (%) | 717 (17.7) | 492 (24.0) | 225 (11.3) | 470 (23.7) | 22 (30.6) | 13 (8.2) | 14 (6.7) | 23 (11.0) | 25 (12.0) | 40 (19.0) | 16 (7.8) | 12 (6.7) | 17 (8.0) | 44 (21.4) | 21 (10.2) |
| Body contouring surgery n (%) | 17 (2.4) | 11 (2.2) | 6 (2.7) | 11 (2.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) |
3.2. Total and continent‐specific normative scores
Table 2 summarises the normative mean scores of participants separately for North Americans and Europeans. There were statistically significant differences between North America and Europe for nine of 12 appearance scales: arms (p < .001), back (p < .001), buttocks (p = .004), thighs (p = .008), skin (p = .015), chest (p = .004), nipples (p < .001), and stretch marks (p < .001). In all nine scales, the European participants scored higher than North American participants. For the HRQL scales, European participants scored significantly higher on social (p = .026), sexual (p = .018), body image (p = .017), and work life (p < .001), while North American participants scored significantly higher on appearance distress (p < .001). In the eating‐related concerns domain, European participants scored higher on eating‐related distress (p < .001) compared to North American participants. There were no differences in scores for eating‐related symptoms and eating behaviour between the two continents.
TABLE 2.
Continent‐specific and combined normative scores
| A Appearance scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean (SE/SD) | N | 95% Confidence Int. | p Value* | |
| Body | ||||||
| North America | 45.78 (0.51) | 1487 | 44.78 | 46.77 | .134 | |
| Europe | 46.88 (0.42) | 1993 | 46.05 | 47.7 | .134 | |
| Total | 46.41 (19.46) | 3480 | ||||
| Abdomen | ||||||
| North America | 37.03 (0.71) | 1487 | 35.65 | 38.42 | .196 | |
| Europe | 38.44 (0.67) | 1604 | 37.12 | 39.76 | .196 | |
| Total | 37.76 (27.55) | 3091 | ||||
| Arms | ||||||
| North America | 52.66 (0.66) | 1487 | 51.36 | 53.95 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 58.45 (0.63) | 1605 | 57.21 | 59.69 | <.001* | |
| Total | 55.66 (24.65) | 3092 | ||||
| Back | ||||||
| North America | 54.11 (0.75) | 1487 | 52.63 | 55.58 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 60.613 (0.72) | 1605 | 59.21 | 62.02 | <.001* | |
| Total | 57.48 (27.22) | 3092 | ||||
| Buttocks | ||||||
| North America | 51.96 (0.68) | 1487 | 50.63 | 53.3 | .004* | |
| Europe | 54.99 (0.65) | 1605 | 53.72 | 56.26 | .004* | |
| Total | 53.53 (24.68) | 3092 | ||||
| Hips | ||||||
| North America | 53.82 (0.74) | 1487 | 52.37 | 55.27 | .474 | |
| Europe | 54.64 (0.71) | 1605 | 53.25 | 56.02 | .474 | |
| Total | 54.24 (27.61) | 3092 | ||||
| Thighs | ||||||
| North America | 50.58 (0.78) | 1487 | 49.05 | 52.11 | .008* | |
| Europe | 53.80 (0.75) | 1605 | 52.34 | 55.27 | .008* | |
| Total | 52.25 (30.02) | 3092 | ||||
| Skin | ||||||
| North America | 48.24 (1.478) | 365 | 45.34 | 51.15 | .015* | |
| Europe | 55.07 (2.021) | 222 | 51.1 | 59.04 | .015* | |
| Total | 50.82 (27.25) | 587 | ||||
| Chest | ||||||
| North America | 51.08 (1.06) | 579 | 49 | 53.17 | .004* | |
| Europe | 55.52 (0.87) | 792 | 53.81 | 57.23 | .004* | |
| Total | 53.65 (23.12) | 1371 | ||||
| Nipples | ||||||
| North America | 65.64 (1.18) | 579 | 63.33 | 67.94 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 71.60 (0.96) | 793 | 69.71 | 73.49 | <.001* | |
| Total | 69.08 (24.54) | 1372 | ||||
| Stretch marks | ||||||
| North America | 71.63 (0.96) | 857 | 69.75 | 73.52 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 79.69 (1.15) | 640 | 77.43 | 81.96 | <.001* | |
| Total | 75.08 (26.01) | 497 | ||||
| Cellulite | ||||||
| North America | 58.25 (1.04) | 402 | 56.2 | 60.3 | 0.411 | |
| Europe | 60.73 (2.78) | 64 | 55.28 | 66.19 | 0.411 | |
| Total | 58.59 (20.81) | 466 | ||||
| B Health‐related quality of life scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean (SE/SD) | N | 95% Confidence Int. | p Value* | |
| Psychological function | ||||||
| North America | 58.03 (0.63) | 1485 | 56.81 | 59.26 | .884 | |
| Europe | 57.89 (0.60) | 1605 | 56.72 | 59.06 | .884 | |
| Total | 57.96 (21.81) | 3090 | ||||
| Physical function | ||||||
| North America | 81.35 (0.56) | 1485 | 80.24 | 82.45 | .366 | |
| Europe | 80.61 (0.56) | 1992 | 79.69 | 81.53 | .366 | |
| Total | 80.92 (19.70) | 3477 | ||||
| Social function | ||||||
| North America | 54.21 (0.54) | 1485 | 53.15 | 55.26 | .026* | |
| Europe | 55.94 (0.45) | 1993 | 55.06 | 56.82 | .026* | |
| Total | 55.20 (18.05) | 3478 | ||||
| Sexual function | ||||||
| North America | 58.56 (0.74) | 1099 | 57.11 | 60.01 | .018* | |
| Europe | 61.19 (0.68) | 1277 | 59.87 | 62.52 | .018* | |
| Total | 59.98 (22.47) | 2376 | ||||
| Body image | ||||||
| North America | 45.34 (0.63) | 1485 | 44.1 | 46.58 | .017* | |
| Europe | 47.67 (0.60) | 1605 | 46.49 | 48.85 | .017* | |
| Total | 46.55 (23.72) | 3090 | ||||
| Distress | ||||||
| North America | 44.22 (0.57) | 1487 | 43.09 | 45.341 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 38.77 (0.65) | 1211 | 37.5 | 40.046 | <.001* | |
| Total | 41.77 (21.48) | 2698 | ||||
| Work | ||||||
| North America | 70.21 (0.61) | 837 | 69 | 71.41 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 75.43 (1.34) | 202 | 72.8 | 78.06 | <.001* | |
| Total | 71.22 (18.18) | 1039 | ||||
| C Eating‐related concerns scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean (SE/SD) | N | 95% Confidence Int. | p Value* | |
| Eating‐related symptoms | ||||||
| North America | 79.86 (0.34) | 1487 | 78.92 | 80.25 | .712 | |
| Europe | 79.59 (0.59) | 572 | 78.7 | 81.02 | .712 | |
| Total | 79.66 (12.92) | 2059 | ||||
| Eating‐related distress | ||||||
| North America | 76.79 (0.49) | 1487 | 79.86 | 83.19 | <.001* | |
| Europe | 81.52 (0.85) | 572 | 75.83 | 77.74 | <.001* | |
| Total | 78.10 (19.21) | 2059 | ||||
| Eating behaviour | ||||||
| North America | 54.09 (0.32) | 1487 | 53.47 | 54.72 | .409 | |
| Europe | 54.66 (0.55) | 572 | 53.57 | 55.74 | .409 | |
| Total | 54.25 (12.00) | 2059 | ||||
Note: SD in total, SE in North America and Europe specific.
Abbreviations: 95% Confidence Int., Confidence Interval; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.
p Value < .05.
Figure 2 (appearance scales) and Figure 3 (HRQL and eating concerns scales) show the mean scores for each continent as well as the mean scores of the combined sample. Table A1 shows the country specific scores of all scales.
FIGURE 2.
Appearance. Normative values for the appearance scales in North America, Europe, and the combined values.
FIGURE 3.
Health‐related quality of life (HRQL) and eating‐related concerns. Normative values for the scales for the HRQL and eating‐related concerns in North America, Europe, and the combined value
3.3. Factors associated with the BODY‐Q scales
In all appearance and HRQL scales, younger age (p < .001), higher BMI (p < .001), and country of residence (p < .001) were negatively associated with BODY‐Q scores. In addition, lower scores for scales measuring body, abdomen, back, inner thighs, hips and outer thighs, arms, buttocks, chest, stretch marks, and body image were associated with an attempt to lose weight (p < .001), female gender (p < .001), and comorbidities (p < .001). In addition, higher scores on psychological and sexual scales were associated with marital and employment status (p < .001), while physical scores were negatively associated with comorbidities (p < .001) and lower educational level (p < .001). Lower scores indicating higher appearance distress were associated with all confounders including younger age (p < .001), higher BMI (p < .001), female gender (p < .001), attempt of weight loss in the past (p < .001), marital status (p < .001), comorbidities (p < .001), employment status (p < .001), educational level (p < .001), and country (p < .001).
In the eating‐related concerns scales younger age (p < .001), higher BMI (p < .005), and comorbidities as dichotomized variable (p < .001) were adversely associated to all three scales. Eating‐related distress and eating‐related symptoms were also associated with attempt of weight loss in the past (p < .001), female gender (p < .001), and ethnicity (p = .02).
3.4. Normative scores stratified by age and BMI
The mean normative scores for each scale stratified by age, gender and BMI are shown in Table 3. Table 3 serves as a reference and overview of normative BODY‐Q scores for each age‐ and BMI group adjusted for country, ethnicity, educational level, employment status, marital status, comorbidities, and weight loss treatment, and shows the normative values by gender for the different age and BMI groups. The chest scale is applicable to people who identify as male or transmale.
TABLE 3.
Normative scores split by age, BMI and gender
| Appearance scales | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Body | Abdomen | Arms | Back | Buttocks | Hips | Thighs | Chest | Nipples | Stretch Marks | Skin | Cellulite | ||
| BMI | Age | |||||||||||||
| Female | <18.5 | 17–29 | 52.81 | 52.70 | 60.73 | 62.66 | 47.74 | 54.23 | 55.60 | NA | NA | 74.11 | 50.63 | 58.54 |
| 30–39 | 56.42 | 45.58 | 58.87 | 62.53 | 47.53 | 54.77 | 47.41 | NA | NA | 60.49 | 50.88 | 30.03 | ||
| 40–49 | 66.05 | 82.10 | 86.40 | 86.85 | 72.31 | 90.67 | 91.20 | NA | NA | 70.50 | 63.18 | 77.54 | ||
| 50–‐59 | 47.14 | 40.11 | 45.87 | 46.72 | 41.27 | 54.08 | 54.33 | NA | NA | 64.60 | 31.43 | 69.52 | ||
| >60 | 59.80 | 64.06 | 65.02 | 92.28 | 73.83 | 97.68 | 48.69 | NA | NA | NA | 57.39 | 59.00 | ||
| 18.5–25 | 17–29 | 49.06 | 45.95 | 59.90 | 64.62 | 53.85 | 51.89 | 50.91 | NA | NA | 74.78 | 54.89 | 62.77 | |
| 30–39 | 49.19 | 39.07 | 60.34 | 65.12 | 53.02 | 51.90 | 50.17 | NA | NA | 76.01 | 44.52 | 62.13 | ||
| 40–49 | 50.13 | 37.88 | 61.11 | 69.40 | 55.42 | 55.79 | 51.49 | NA | NA | 79.51 | 55.71 | 61.12 | ||
| 50–59 | 50.12 | 36.06 | 53.25 | 61.53 | 52.14 | 54.46 | 43.66 | NA | NA | 79.51 | 58.85 | 54.48 | ||
| >60 | 58.92 | 48.81 | 55.01 | 71.68 | 56.66 | 58.89 | 53.44 | NA | NA | 94.93 | 61.95 | 64.97 | ||
| 25–30 | 17–29 | 33.40 | 23.39 | 40.32 | 44.28 | 43.71 | 38.57 | 34.69 | NA | NA | 67.48 | 37.74 | 53.80 | |
| 30–39 | 37.14 | 23.63 | 45.14 | 47.55 | 46.49 | 46.82 | 42.50 | NA | NA | 64.79 | 36.34 | 60.75 | ||
| 40–49 | 36.52 | 22.90 | 44.60 | 50.41 | 46.01 | 40.92 | 35.69 | NA | NA | 67.79 | 43.92 | 61.68 | ||
| 50–59 | 39.91 | 24.36 | 48.64 | 52.39 | 47.72 | 49.06 | 44.37 | NA | NA | 77.32 | 48.14 | 59.75 | ||
| >60 | 42.90 | 26.33 | 42.20 | 51.91 | 48.71 | 46.88 | 42.33 | NA | NA | 79.65 | 46.55 | 53.93 | ||
| 30–35 | 17–29 | 33.44 | 22.17 | 41.64 | 47.19 | 50.68 | 44.89 | 33.35 | NA | NA | 65.85 | 44.12 | 48.72 | |
| 30–39 | 34.94 | 18.14 | 44.24 | 40.63 | 41.63 | 37.29 | 33.20 | NA | NA | 73.35 | 38.58 | 54.56 | ||
| 40–49 | 27.67 | 13.74 | 29.08 | 34.87 | 32.10 | 32.33 | 25.94 | NA | NA | 63.69 | 27.21 | 64.95 | ||
| 50–59 | 28.22 | 20.61 | 38.20 | 43.92 | 34.58 | 34.20 | 32.01 | NA | NA | 69.10 | 39.17 | 56.00 | ||
| >60 | 34.93 | 21.86 | 37.01 | 45.29 | 42.27 | 36.15 | 40.09 | NA | NA | 91.23 | 56.04 | 82.80 | ||
| 35–40 | 17–29 | 24.00 | 10.09 | 24.73 | 11.43 | 29.54 | 36.81 | 25.16 | NA | NA | 49.42 | 20.63 | 60.15 | |
| 30–39 | 23.09 | 8.602 | 20.14 | 29.36 | 31.81 | 26.11 | 17.95 | NA | NA | 60.71 | 39.55 | 53.34 | ||
| 40–49 | 23.80 | 12.48 | 33.39 | 31.87 | 34.89 | 23.36 | 22.76 | NA | NA | 60.20 | 39.91 | 62.55 | ||
| 50–59 | 30.76 | 10.10 | 27.53 | 28.87 | 33.00 | 26.63 | 22.59 | NA | NA | 67.89 | 35.42 | 65.21 | ||
| >60 | 29.08 | 15.06 | 37.25 | 42.13 | 36.88 | 31.14 | 31.59 | NA | NA | 78.00 | 45.76 | 50.24 | ||
| >40 | 17–29 | 17.20 | 15.72 | 13.97 | 5.098 | 20.28 | 26.37 | 11.83 | NA | NA | 50.85 | 13.60 | 62.74 | |
| 30–39 | 20.04 | 15.99 | 24.14 | 19.55 | 26.44 | 23.36 | 19.25 | NA | NA | 60.05 | 28.44 | 39.34 | ||
| 40–49 | 23.22 | 11.70 | 25.71 | 37.17 | 27.67 | 27.32 | 19.05 | NA | NA | 79.22 | 40.55 | 61.25 | ||
| 50–59 | 23.69 | 16.73 | 28.32 | 32.88 | 25.98 | 25.01 | 20.19 | NA | NA | 69.40 | 44.90 | 52.32 | ||
| >60 | 22.31 | 14.94 | 25.98 | 37.86 | 22.54 | 22.33 | 17.44 | NA | NA | 72.56 | 40.73 | 47.15 | ||
| Male | <18.5 | 17–29 | 47.40 | 57.43 | 52.93 | 49.91 | 54.73 | 60.57 | 59.44 | 51.56 | 64.16 | 73.14 | 73.33 | NA |
| 30–39 | 47.59 | 32.22 | 40.47 | 33.25 | 40.22 | 47.00 | 56.21 | 34.81 | 50.67 | 62.89 | NA | NA | ||
| 40–49 | 62.91 | 40.05 | 54.25 | 44.59 | 54.38 | 59.11 | 55.75 | 33.21 | 71.12 | 84.33 | NA | NA | ||
| 50–59 | 57.47 | 40.37 | 61.82 | 75.28 | 63.58 | 77.36 | 75.42 | 52.19 | 88.04 | NA | NA | NA | ||
| >60 | 57.04 | 29.46 | 45.09 | 47.06 | 60.24 | 86.34 | 66.53 | 62.44 | 90.00 | NA | NA | NA | ||
| 18.5–25 | 17–29 | 57.97 | 56.73 | 64.82 | 66.58 | 64.94 | 68.28 | 69.71 | 60.42 | 70.58 | 87.94 | 61.92 | 52.50 | |
| 30–39 | 57.13 | 52.06 | 62.24 | 62.15 | 61.80 | 64.98 | 65.51 | 58.21 | 70.88 | 81.34 | 68.08 | NA | ||
| 40–49 | 57.97 | 55.62 | 66.98 | 63.64 | 63.10 | 71.52 | 74.81 | 63.10 | 75.51 | 88.85 | 79.00 | 74.00 | ||
| 50–59 | 58.43 | 56.22 | 65.00 | 63.30 | 68.20 | 75.73 | 74.72 | 63.17 | 80.82 | 62.34 | 77.95 | NA | ||
| >60 | 62.87 | 52.21 | 65.31 | 71.92 | 72.20 | 80.17 | 73.98 | 62.08 | 79.56 | 92.20 | 71.30 | NA | ||
| 25–30 | 17–29 | 49.99 | 41.43 | 64.41 | 62.72 | 56.85 | 59.26 | 59.12 | 54.00 | 67.52 | 79.62 | 60.62 | 48.00 | |
| 30–39 | 45.58 | 33.25 | 62.24 | 59.32 | 58.77 | 61.54 | 60.2 | 51.42 | 64.03 | 80.39 | 65.58 | 51.09 | ||
| 40–49 | 44.47 | 27.39 | 63.16 | 57.66 | 58.44 | 60.57 | 63.49 | 50.83 | 68.70 | 81.78 | 66.00 | 65.60 | ||
| 50–59 | 48.85 | 36.83 | 67.46 | 62.84 | 61.40 | 67.23 | 65.69 | 51.32 | 72.05 | 83.59 | 67.88 | 66.00 | ||
| >60 | 51.35 | 38.65 | 69.75 | 68.08 | 66.25 | 72.35 | 71.47 | 56.41 | 74.26 | 95.49 | 59.33 | 44.29 | ||
| 30–35 | 17–29 | 37.47 | 23.31 | 52.40 | 50.94 | 53.09 | 46.43 | 42.72 | 34.62 | 56.22 | 70.24 | 58.00 | 60.00 | |
| 30–39 | 39.02 | 27.38 | 63.56 | 59.43 | 61.57 | 57.96 | 52.35 | 42.23 | 73.45 | 83.72 | 57.57 | 49.00 | ||
| 40–49 | 37.61 | 25.34 | 65.07 | 54.52 | 50.28 | 54.61 | 58.88 | 44.93 | 66.60 | 79.12 | 65.67 | 72.00 | ||
| 50–59 | 37.62 | 26.44 | 65.30 | 60.43 | 61.14 | 61.21 | 57.33 | 47.18 | 73.83 | 82.86 | 46.25 | 72.50 | ||
| >60 | 46.49 | 26.27 | 68.56 | 66.80 | 74.63 | 69.05 | 69.92 | 55.82 | 75.5 | 90.99 | 73.29 | NA | ||
| 35–40 | 17–29 | 26.95 | 16.88 | 49.57 | 34.83 | 31.89 | 30.33 | 22.42 | 26.00 | 38.81 | 47.22 | 48.33 | 62.50 | |
| 30–39 | 27.07 | 17.56 | 47.53 | 28.68 | 27.02 | 32.59 | 31.23 | 25.87 | 59.97 | 58.79 | 32.00 | 43.50 | ||
| 40–49 | 31.09 | 23.86 | 60.95 | 44.98 | 39.66 | 46.03 | 53.39 | 32.25 | 66.11 | 83.75 | 62.00 | NA | ||
| 50–59 | 38.47 | 26.35 | 54.32 | 51.20 | 50.43 | 49.26 | 48.87 | 39.10 | 73.52 | 69.43 | 40.50 | 49.50 | ||
| >60 | 44.47 | 31.50 | 58.78 | 68.71 | 63.20 | 68.69 | 71.31 | 55.07 | 79.30 | 96.26 | 68.00 | 83.00 | ||
| >40 | 17–29 | 21.03 | 15.22 | 35.08 | 25.46 | 25.69 | 24.68 | 20.23 | 18.10 | 57.48 | 62.45 | 40.33 | 11.84 | |
| 30–39 | 29.41 | 19.32 | 31.79 | 24.53 | 29.73 | 21.68 | 16.61 | 28.94 | 46.77 | 69.08 | NA | 40.60 | ||
| 40–49 | 27.20 | 18.00 | 56.30 | 46.28 | 53.77 | 53.6 | 40.78 | 37.98 | 65.64 | 68.14 | 37.25 | 93.80 | ||
| 50–59 | 19.77 | 7.60 | 26.48 | 27.95 | 31.61 | 24.11 | 13.89 | 19.43 | 57.52 | 54.27 | 42.00 | 68.98 | ||
| >60 | 40.71 | 19.88 | 53.20 | 47.40 | 50.20 | 43.86 | 36.00 | 34.80 | 57.51 | 71.65 | 53.50 | NA | ||
| Health‐related quality of life (HRQL) and eating‐related concerns scales | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Psychological well‐being | Physical well‐being | Social well‐being | Sexual well‐being | Body image | Work life | Distress | Eating‐related symptoms | Eating‐related distress | Eating behaviour | ||
| BMI | Age | |||||||||||
| Female | <18.5 | 17–29 | 53.23 | 80.89 | 52.20 | 60.49 | 53.88 | 64.71 | 42.15 | 72.74 | 78.44 | 58.02 |
| 30–39 | 41.35 | 83.67 | 45.28 | 51.26 | 48.96 | 56.09 | 52.83 | 76.89 | 83.94 | 57.35 | ||
| 40–49 | 67.64 | 71.58 | 50.64 | 56.92 | 70.27 | 82.68 | 38.76 | 85.45 | 91.96 | 66.09 | ||
| 50–59 | 52.31 | 66.67 | 53.06 | 42.00 | 43.65 | 57.67 | 54.34 | 76.48 | 77.01 | 62.80 | ||
| >60 | 69.32 | 76.76 | 76.01 | 70.21 | 54.04 | 67.29 | 29.58 | 85.23 | 96.89 | 70.47 | ||
| 18.5–25 | 17–29 | 57.54 | 85.69 | 64.45 | 64.16 | 52.77 | 72.93 | 44.47 | 77.45 | 75.29 | 55.54 | |
| 30–39 | 55.41 | 85.76 | 52.07 | 62.46 | 49.23 | 71.24 | 43.14 | 77.75 | 76.55 | 52.97 | ||
| 40–49 | 61.30 | 82.29 | 57.49 | 63.41 | 52.35 | 76.86 | 35.10 | 83.44 | 84.61 | 55.96 | ||
| 50–59 | 62.24 | 80.57 | 57.52 | 57.32 | 50.35 | 76.61 | 33.16 | 80.97 | 85.58 | 59.25 | ||
| >60 | 73.32 | 83.40 | 65.56 | 62.81 | 60.34 | 89.49 | 22.17 | 89.06 | 93.15 | 62.51 | ||
| 25–30 | 17–29 | 46.00 | 82.92 | 48.48 | 54.46 | 33.06 | 56.81 | 57.69 | 76.54 | 68.40 | 49.66 | |
| 30–39 | 49.11 | 81.52 | 48.96 | 55.93 | 36.20 | 64.33 | 50.21 | 77.36 | 68.76 | 50.32 | ||
| 40–49 | 58.49 | 75.15 | 57.00 | 57.12 | 38.73 | 69.30 | 43.09 | 77.31 | 71.80 | 53.05 | ||
| 50–59 | 67.39 | 79.88 | 62.22 | 55.84 | 43.55 | 75.20 | 37.30 | 79.54 | 79.16 | 57.69 | ||
| >60 | 70.16 | 83.64 | 65.18 | 60.34 | 44.09 | 77.61 | 34.05 | 82.94 | 81.74 | 59.01 | ||
| 30–35 | 17–29 | 50.10 | 77.47 | 50.09 | 53.39 | 34.02 | 62.38 | 53.13 | 77.25 | 64.64 | 49.43 | |
| 30–39 | 54.46 | 75.80 | 54.06 | 55.51 | 35.54 | 72.28 | 49.83 | 79.19 | 71.25 | 51.33 | ||
| 40–49 | 51.33 | 73.81 | 52.30 | 51.81 | 24.79 | 66.52 | 50.30 | 75.17 | 67.64 | 51.55 | ||
| 50–59 | 58.46 | 69.84 | 59.34 | 43.04 | 27.87 | 66.42 | 47.69 | 76.30 | 73.38 | 51.12 | ||
| >60 | 61.57 | 79.19 | 66.45 | 51.45 | 33.97 | 71.70 | 35.59 | 82.37 | 81.58 | 58.14 | ||
| 35–40 | 17–29 | 27.09 | 69.68 | 36.58 | 39.30 | 17.12 | 46.81 | 67.40 | 71.1 | 51.18 | 45.45 | |
| 30–39 | 48.47 | 76.46 | 47.64 | 47.55 | 24.33 | 52.92 | 60.61 | 71.77 | 61.24 | 47.13 | ||
| 40–49 | 38.04 | 52.00 | 43.91 | 42.07 | 23.03 | 70.40 | 60.13 | 68.62 | 60.20 | 53.12 | ||
| 50–59 | 50.29 | 69.06 | 51.24 | 43.72 | 24.42 | 69.47 | 53.95 | 77.95 | 69.90 | 47.70 | ||
| >60 | 60.20 | 69.74 | 54.41 | 48.73 | 30.52 | 61.40 | 46.08 | 80.14 | 75.32 | 54.11 | ||
| >40 | 17–29 | 31.36 | 69.32 | 37.06 | 53.40 | 20.38 | 66.52 | 71.27 | 71.1 | 48.48 | 45.41 | |
| 30–39 | 54.63 | 69.25 | 55.02 | 53.17 | 24.36 | 67.04 | 56.01 | 74.1 | 75.88 | 58.55 | ||
| 40–49 | 43.27 | 60.33 | 47.60 | 55.64 | 21.47 | 66.15 | 58.74 | 73.26 | 63.97 | 45.08 | ||
| 50–59 | 55.75 | 58.94 | 49.61 | 37.88 | 25.30 | 53.53 | 57.12 | 77.91 | 67.69 | 53.32 | ||
| >60 | 62.71 | 45.22 | 52.72 | 36.84 | 22.56 | 67.39 | 43.30 | 81.28 | 78.71 | 53.37 | ||
| Male | <18.5 | 17–29 | 51.59 | 77.62 | 48.90 | 59.62 | 44.51 | 55.80 | 47.47 | 78.3 | 85.67 | 51.81 |
| 30–39 | 41.85 | 89.19 | 44.77 | 46.46 | 18.58 | 61.00 | 45.65 | 72.74 | 71.06 | 48.98 | ||
| 40–49 | 58.66 | 93.39 | 52.20 | 39.93 | 60.44 | 67.58 | 47.85 | 73.76 | 82.20 | 49.17 | ||
| 50–59 | 59.52 | 75.22 | 42.00 | 46.62 | 48.88 | NA | 32.27 | 84.63 | 93.26 | 56.96 | ||
| >60 | 73.80 | 54.21 | 47.18 | 41.26 | 49.44 | NA | 13.00 | 96.08 | 82.08 | 91.20 | ||
| 18.5–25 | 17–29 | 63.30 | 83.70 | 57.47 | 67.57 | 58.52 | 75.32 | 39.66 | 81.66 | 85.15 | 56.40 | |
| 30–39 | 59.68 | 87.24 | 54.43 | 64.33 | 57.97 | 72.83 | 34.64 | 81.66 | 86.03 | 55.90 | ||
| 40–49 | 59.89 | 83.31 | 56.98 | 61.67 | 57.37 | 80.34 | 28.01 | 84.37 | 90.05 | 56.64 | ||
| 50–59 | 68.04 | 91.06 | 61.69 | 70.45 | 65.53 | 81.30 | 27.72 | 87.72 | 89.67 | 60.26 | ||
| >60 | 67.93 | 81.87 | 64.63 | 67.48 | 59.01 | 75.64 | 19.65 | 84.77 | 92.83 | 58.81 | ||
| 25–30 | 17–29 | 61.14 | 83.94 | 59.52 | 69.32 | 50.54 | 70.26 | 40.33 | 79.71 | 77.46 | 51.70 | |
| 30–39 | 56.49 | 83.78 | 55.23 | 62.10 | 45.79 | 73.62 | 37.04 | 79.76 | 76.59 | 50.55 | ||
| 40–49 | 56.10 | 77.08 | 54.39 | 58.99 | 43.13 | 70.12 | 38.49 | 79.42 | 78.59 | 51.99 | ||
| 50–59 | 70.15 | 82.32 | 62.17 | 61.29 | 51.54 | 79.63 | 27.40 | 85.31 | 87.81 | 57.73 | ||
| >60 | 74.66 | 79.05 | 65.78 | 66.66 | 54.45 | 80.01 | 22.21 | 89.32 | 90.44 | 58.91 | ||
| 30–35 | 17–29 | 48.97 | 83.37 | 51.79 | 59.45 | 31.66 | 71.79 | 45.48 | 80.33 | 66.64 | 45.57 | |
| 30–39 | 56.22 | 82.32 | 51.66 | 55.07 | 41.79 | 66.16 | 53.93 | 75.72 | 70.45 | 51.10 | ||
| 40–49 | 56.06 | 79.38 | 52.28 | 53.10 | 40.23 | 65.46 | 44.99 | 78.07 | 74.28 | 49.61 | ||
| 50–59 | 58.11 | 67.09 | 56.59 | 52.35 | 38.95 | 69.70 | 35.17 | 77.24 | 74.51 | 51.22 | ||
| >60 | 69.57 | 70.85 | 60.91 | 58.38 | 48.32 | 74.82 | 32.76 | 86.25 | 85.61 | 54.76 | ||
| 35–40 | 17–29 | 40.36 | 75.87 | 45.95 | 50.71 | 14.66 | 31.28 | 70.78 | 76.63 | 54.56 | 38.15 | |
| 30–39 | 44.33 | 79.36 | 46.35 | 48.97 | 20.16 | 51.62 | 60.09 | 71.38 | 64.81 | 42.29 | ||
| 40–49 | 56.30 | 73.07 | 49.93 | 62.15 | 29.05 | 58.66 | 41.23 | 79.39 | 74.53 | 52.51 | ||
| 50–59 | 57.07 | 68.28 | 66.57 | 56.87 | 41.37 | 78.43 | 39.13 | 78.05 | 83.32 | 57.36 | ||
| >60 | 64.05 | 68.99 | 59.30 | 34.75 | 46.02 | 79.96 | 26.20 | 93.54 | 96.61 | 56.46 | ||
| >40 | 17–29 | 35.67 | 61.84 | 41.72 | 45.75 | 20.26 | 27.02 | 68.31 | 72.77 | 42.75 | 33.58 | |
| 30–39 | 45.97 | 50.37 | 49.97 | 45.17 | 20.04 | 76.75 | 37.81 | 62.37 | 94.65 | 59.32 | ||
| 40–49 | 48.70 | 61.70 | 44.02 | 25.04 | 17.13 | 69.62 | 44.28 | 74.21 | 69.78 | 52.28 | ||
| 50–59 | 24.94 | 46.23 | 39.24 | 21.28 | 12.58 | 49.25 | 71.14 | 73.75 | 52.70 | 42.00 | ||
| >60 | 51.60 | 54.75 | 64.51 | 37.75 | 31.91 | 55.49 | 35.74 | 85.25 | 79.17 | 53.15 | ||
| BODY‐Q Scores |
| 75–100 |
| 50–75 |
| 25–50 |
| 0–25 |
| NA |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.
Overall, appearance scores tended to decrease with higher BMI for all age groups. Females had lower satisfaction with appearance compared with males. This lower satisfaction with appearance in females were more pronounced for appearance of the abdomen, where females with a BMI 25.5–29.99 kg/m2 scored below 25, while males with a BMI 35–39.99 kg/m2 scored below 25. For the HRQL scales, the same pattern was seen with females scoring below 25 on the body image scale from BMI 30–34.9 kg/m2, whereas males scored below 25 from BMI 35–39.9 kg/m2 in the age group 17–29 years, and BMI >40 for all age groups. For the remaining HRQL and eating‐related concerns scales similar scores were observed for males and females.
4. DISCUSSION
In this study, we presented BODY‐Q normative scores generated from an international sample of 4051 participants from a total of 12 North American and European countries. The overall and continent‐specific normative scores were provided for 22 BODY‐Q scales from three domains – appearance (12 scales), HRQL (7 scales), and eating‐related concerns (3 scales). The normative scores for all scales are presented stratified by age, BMI, and gender (male and female). These normative values provide means to interpret the BODY‐Q scores for use in research and clinical practise.
The development of PROMs that evidence validity, responsiveness and reliability, the BODY‐Q, have facilitated investigation of the unique outcomes of weight loss and/or BC from the patient perspective. 4 , 14 , 22 The BODY‐Q can be used clinically and as a research tool to shed light on our understanding of the effects of losing weight and following BC procedures on perceptions of appearance, HRQL and eating behaviour. 12 , 16 This is the first study to date to generate normative values for interpreting the BODY‐Q. Previous outcome studies using the BODY‐Q to measure change of satisfaction with appearance and HRQL in BaS and BC patients revealed significantly higher mean BODY‐Q scores after BaS. In addition, the studies showed significantly higher scores for patients who received BC following BaS compared to patients who did not. 4 , 6 , 23 , 24 However, these scores were limited by not being able to compare their findings to reference values from the general population. Measuring a return to normality is important; thus, there is a need for an appropriate reference point for weight loss‐ and BC patients. The values provided in this study enables accurate comparison with the general population enhancing the interpretation of BODY‐Q data to understand the actual impact of weight loss and BC on different aspects of patient's lives. The findings of this study have important implications for research, future clinical care, and healthcare policy.
Normative scores have been generated for the generic 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36), and European‐Quality of life‐5 Dimensions (EQ‐5D) which is the most widely used generic PROMs in obesity and weight loss treatment. 36 , 37 , 38 However, generic PROMs lack content validity and may not capture specific concepts of matter for weight loss and BC patients. 35 The lack of sensitivity or responsiveness for weight loss and BC specific outcomes, may minimise or not detect changes as a result of weight loss or BC. 19 , 39 Nonetheless, our findings were in line with the normative SF‐36 scores with females having lower scores than males in regards of satisfaction with appearance and body image. 36 , 37 In contrast to other studies investigating population norms, there are no differences in the scores of females and males in HRQL and eating‐related concerns scales. 36 , 40 Younger age was negatively associated with BODY‐Q scores contradictory to normative EQ‐5D scores, where younger age was associated with higher scores. 38 , 41
Opposing to our hypothesis of minimal differences between scores across the 12 countries, we detected significant differences between North America and Europe, and between some European countries in all appearance scales and social function, sexual function, body image, and work life within the HRQL scales. Differential item functioning (DIF), which describes the stability of the BODY‐Q instrument to determine whether items are responded differently by subgroups within a population, has been examined elsewhere in the original BODY‐Q population, and found to have a negligible impact. 14 , 18 The differences detected in this study are therefore most likely not due to DIF, but rather due to cross‐cultural differences between countries. There might be differences in the experience and conceptualization of HRQL across different socio‐cultural groups, which further emphasized the need of general norms to understand the clinical significance and magnitude of the change weight loss and/or BC have on patient's lives. 42 , 43 Interestingly, there were no differences between North America and Europe in eating‐related symptoms‐ and eating behaviour scales, while European participants scores significantly higher scores in eating‐related distress. Cross‐cultural factors such as cultural beliefs regarding food preferences and culinary habits have shown to influence individual's eating behaviour and relationship with food. 44 , 45 Due to differences in eating cultures, we expected differences between countries, especially between the two continents. The eating‐related concerns domain is however a newly developed scale, and only available in few languages (English, Danish, and Dutch). Therefore, data is solely based on North America, the Netherlands, and Denmark. More cross‐cultural research is needed to identify causes of differences and similarities between countries. However, all data were adjusted for country as a covariate when the total normative value was determined, due to these differences between the distribution of BODY‐Q scores from different countries and continents. The sample was more representative when both continents were combined, with a mean age of 36 (±14.7 SD) years, 11 996 (49.3%) female, 2023 (49.9%) male, and 32 (0.8%) other gender identifications. Therefore, we recommend the use of the combined normative values for comparative purposes.
The secondary aim of this project was to investigate factors associated with BODY‐Q scores. BMI and age were inversely associated with BODY‐Q scores in all satisfaction with appearance and HRQL scales. Our results points to the fact that living with obesity represents a significant health impairment. 46 In the normative data split by gender for the different age and BMI groups, females had lower satisfaction with appearance corresponding with the normative SF‐36 scores. 36 , 37 Female participants with a BMI 25.5–30.0 kg/m2 scored below 25, while male participants scored below 25 from BMI 35–40 kg/m2. The same pattern was seen in body image, where female participant scored below 25 from BMI 30–35 kg/m2, whilst male participants scored below 25 from BMI >40. The only exception was for male participants in the age group 17–29 years, who scored below 25 from BMI 35–40 kg/m2. In the remaining HRQL and eating‐related concerns scales, male and female participants scored similarly.
Strengths of our study is the large international sample of 4051 participants to match the diverse population of weight loss and BC patients. Online crowdsourcing databases such as Prolific and MTurk has shown to be a valid and reliable method for recruitment of research participants, facilitating cross‐cultural and international research with low costs and high validity. 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 However, a potential limitation of this study is whether the recruitment of participants via the crowdsourcing platforms is representative of the general population of the included countries or not. An important limitation of this study is the ethnical diversity. In total, the population consisted of 87.9% participants who identified themselves as white, while only 12.1% identified themselves as another ethnicity. Therefore, the ethnical homogeneity should be considered with caution when interpreting these normative results. In addition, participants were paid to participate, which may have impacted incentives of participation in this study and their responses to the questions. In the European sample, the participants were younger. This is in line with other studies using crowdsourcing databases, with participants being younger, more educated, reporting lower rates of unemployment and marriage. 47 However, all mean scores were adjusted for age, employment, and marital status. The skin, stretch marks and cellulite scales consisted of a small number of participants, which should be considered when interpreting these results. Future research is needed to compare longitudinal BODY‐Q patient results to these normative data.
5. CONCLUSION
The normative values generated in this study provide clinically relevant reference points for the interpretation of the BODY‐Q with appearance, HRQL, and eating‐related concerns scales. The normative BODY‐Q scores were inversely associated with age and BMI for all appearance, HRQL, and eating‐related concerns scales. These normative data enable us to understand the impact of weight loss and BC on patient's lives for research, future clinical care, and health care policy.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Anne F. Klassen and Andrea L. Pusic are co‐developers of the BODY‐Q and receive a share of any licence revenues based on their institutions inventor sharing policy. Anne F. Klassen is an owner of EVENTUM Research which provides consulting services to the pharmaceutical industry. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are very thankful for all participants who completed the questionnaire for generating population norms. All authors have made substantial contributions to the conception planning and design of the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the results and the writing process of the manuscript including drafting the manuscript and revising it critically. The study was funded by grants received from Odense University Hospital (A5006) and the Region of Southern Denmark (21/17592), Denmark. Manraj Kaur is funded through the Canadian Institute of Health Research Fellowship Award (2020‐23).
APPENDIX A.
TABLE A1.
Country specific normative scores for each scale
| Appearance scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean | Std. error | N | 95 % Confidence interval | |
| Body | ||||||
| Denmark | 50.33 | 1.34 | 159 | 47.7 | 52.96 | |
| Poland | 46.54 | 1.19 | 210 | 44.2 | 48.87 | |
| Netherlands | 52.32 | 1.18 | 208 | 49.02 | 53.63 | |
| France | 46.70 | 1.17 | 210 | 44.41 | 48.98 | |
| Belgium | 46.55 | 1.27 | 178 | 44.07 | 49.04 | |
| England | 42.26 | 1.18 | 205 | 39.95 | 44.56 | |
| Germany | 49.59 | 1.17 | 205 | 46.2 | 50.88 | |
| Italy | 46.13 | 1.19 | 204 | 43.8 | 48.45 | |
| Finland | 47.05 | 1.17 | 205 | 44.75 | 49.35 | |
| Sweden | 45.45 | 1.16 | 209 | 43.17 | 47.73 | |
| United States | 45.63 | 0.51 | 1429 | 44.63 | 46.63 | |
| Canada | 44.17 | 2.23 | 58 | 39.79 | 48.54 | |
| Abdomen | ||||||
| Denmark | 41.74 | 1.92 | 158 | 37.98 | 45.5 | |
| Poland | 36.53 | 1.7 | 210 | 33.2 | 39.86 | |
| Netherlands | 43.00 | 1.68 | 208 | 39.71 | 46.3 | |
| England | 32.52 | 1.67 | 205 | 29.25 | 35.8 | |
| Germany | 40.56 | 1.67 | 205 | 37.3 | 43.83 | |
| Italy | 38.36 | 1.7 | 204 | 35.04 | 41.69 | |
| Finland | 39.03 | 1.67 | 205 | 35.75 | 42.3 | |
| Sweden | 38.17 | 1.66 | 209 | 34.92 | 41.42 | |
| United States | 36.93 | 0.71 | 1429 | 35.54 | 38.33 | |
| Canada | 33.74 | 3.16 | 58 | 27.55 | 39.94 | |
| Arms | ||||||
| Denmark | 58.72 | 1.79 | 159 | 55.21 | 62.23 | |
| Poland | 60.89 | 1.59 | 210 | 57.77 | 64.01 | |
| Netherlands | 62.92 | 1.57 | 208 | 59.83 | 66 | |
| England | 51.45 | 1.57 | 205 | 48.39 | 54.52 | |
| Germany | 60.64 | 1.56 | 205 | 57.58 | 63.69 | |
| Italy | 58.4 | 1.59 | 204 | 55.28 | 61.51 | |
| Finland | 58.43 | 1.57 | 205 | 55.36 | 61.5 | |
| Sweden | 58.00 | 1.55 | 209 | 54.95 | 61.04 | |
| United States | 52.35 | 0.67 | 1429 | 51.05 | 53.66 | |
| Canada | 53.42 | 2.96 | 58 | 47.61 | 59.22 | |
| Back | ||||||
| Denmark | 61.24 | 2.04 | 159 | 57.25 | 65.23 | |
| Poland | 62.06 | 1.81 | 210 | 58.51 | 65.61 | |
| Netherlands | 64.78 | 1.79 | 208 | 61.27 | 68.29 | |
| England | 53.60 | 1.78 | 205 | 50.11 | 57.09 | |
| Germany | 64.22 | 1.77 | 205 | 60.75 | 67.7 | |
| Italy | 59.83 | 1.81 | 204 | 56.29 | 63.37 | |
| Finland | 60.59 | 1.78 | 205 | 57.1 | 64.08 | |
| Sweden | 60.67 | 1.77 | 209 | 57.21 | 64.14 | |
| United States | 53.99 | 0.76 | 1429 | 52.5 | 55.48 | |
| Canada | 49.79 | 3.37 | 58 | 43.19 | 56.39 | |
| Buttocks | ||||||
| Denmark | 57.92 | 1.84 | 159 | 54.3 | 61.53 | |
| Poland | 54.23 | 1.64 | 210 | 51.02 | 57.45 | |
| Netherlands | 57.95 | 1.62 | 208 | 54.77 | 61.13 | |
| England | 52.18 | 1.61 | 205 | 49.02 | 55.34 | |
| Germany | 57.84 | 1.61 | 205 | 54.69 | 60.99 | |
| Italy | 52.37 | 1.63 | 204 | 49.16 | 55.58 | |
| Finland | 55.61 | 1.61 | 205 | 52.45 | 58.77 | |
| Sweden | 52.92 | 1.60 | 209 | 49.78 | 56.05 | |
| United States | 51.86 | 0.69 | 1429 | 50.52 | 53.21 | |
| Canada | 52.80 | 3.05 | 58 | 46.82 | 58.78 | |
| Hips | ||||||
| Denmark | 59.10 | 2.00 | 159 | 55.18 | 63.03 | |
| Poland | 52.76 | 1.78 | 210 | 49.27 | 56.26 | |
| Netherlands | 59.02 | 1.76 | 208 | 55.57 | 62.47 | |
| England | 50.94 | 1.75 | 205 | 47.50 | 54.37 | |
| Germany | 57.29 | 1.75 | 205 | 53.86 | 60.71 | |
| Italy | 48.56 | 1.78 | 204 | 45.07 | 52.04 | |
| Finland | 55.34 | 1.75 | 205 | 51.90 | 58.78 | |
| Sweden | 55.28 | 1.74 | 209 | 51.88 | 58.69 | |
| United States | 53.64 | 0.75 | 1429 | 52.17 | 55.10 | |
| Canada | 57.40 | 3.31 | 58 | 50.90 | 63.90 | |
| Thighs | ||||||
| Denmark | 56.88 | 2.11 | 159 | 52.73 | 61.02 | |
| Poland | 53.59 | 1.88 | 210 | 49.90 | 57.27 | |
| Netherlands | 57.67 | 1.86 | 208 | 54.03 | 61.32 | |
| England | 48.97 | 1.85 | 205 | 45.35 | 52.59 | |
| Germany | 58.15 | 1.84 | 205 | 54.54 | 61.76 | |
| Italy | 45.67 | 1.88 | 204 | 41.00 | 49.34 | |
| Finland | 56.43 | 1.85 | 205 | 52.80 | 60.05 | |
| Sweden | 53.93 | 1.83 | 209 | 50.34 | 57.53 | |
| United States | 50.38 | 0.79 | 1429 | 48.84 | 51.92 | |
| Canada | 54.56 | 3.50 | 58 | 47.7 | 61.41 | |
| Chest | ||||||
| Denmark | 53.66 | 2.08 | 112 | 49.57 | 57.74 | |
| Poland | 53.25 | 1.88 | 145 | 49.56 | 56.93 | |
| Netherlands | 60.15 | 2.00 | 121 | 56.24 | 64.97 | |
| England | 52.91 | 3.15 | 47 | 46.73 | 59.09 | |
| Italy | 56.38 | 2.18 | 102 | 52.11 | 60.65 | |
| Finland | 58.27 | 2.01 | 118 | 54.33 | 62.2 | |
| Sweden | 53.94 | 1.80 | 147 | 50.40 | 57.47 | |
| United States | 51.46 | 1.07 | 558 | 49.37 | 53.56 | |
| Canada | 37.39 | 4.81 | 21 | 27.96 | 46.82 | |
| Nipples | ||||||
| Denmark | 73.88 | 2.3 | 112 | 69.36 | 78.39 | |
| Poland | 68.04 | 2.08 | 145 | 63.97 | 72.12 | |
| Netherlands | 74.08 | 2.21 | 121 | 69.75 | 78.41 | |
| England | 68.67 | 3.45 | 48 | 61.89 | 75.44 | |
| Italy | 65.21 | 2.01 | 102 | 60.5 | 69.93 | |
| Finland | 73.66 | 2.22 | 118 | 69.31 | 78.01 | |
| Sweden | 74.69 | 1.99 | 147 | 70.78 | 78.59 | |
| United States | 65.87 | 1.18 | 558 | 63.56 | 68.18 | |
| Canada | 62.2 | 5.31 | 21 | 51.78 | 72.62 | |
| Stretch marks | ||||||
| Denmark | 81.35 | 2.89 | 78 | 75.68 | 87.03 | |
| Poland | 76.10 | 2.53 | 108 | 71.05 | 80.97 | |
| Netherlands | 85.25 | 2.62 | 98 | 80.12 | 90.38 | |
| England | 72.09 | 2.35 | 118 | 67.49 | 76.69 | |
| Italy | 80.47 | 2.31 | 127 | 75.94 | 84.99 | |
| Sweden | 85.58 | 2.43 | 111 | 80.41 | 89.95 | |
| United States | 71.26 | 0.97 | 820 | 69.97 | 73.16 | |
| Canada | 77.46 | 4.91 | 37 | 69.24 | 85.68 | |
| Excess skin | ||||||
| Denmark | 63.41 | 7.04 | 13 | 49.58 | 77.24 | |
| Poland | 57.56 | 4.35 | 40 | 49.02 | 66.10 | |
| Netherlands | 66.78 | 6.95 | 14 | 53.14 | 80.42 | |
| France | 48.40 | 6.24 | 17 | 36.14 | 60.66 | |
| Belgium | 47.32 | 7.35 | 12 | 32.88 | 61.76 | |
| England | 41.85 | 5.07 | 25 | 31.90 | 51.81 | |
| Germany | 56.53 | 5.51 | 21 | 45.7 | 67.35 | |
| Italy | 56.03 | 6.81 | 14 | 42.65 | 69.42 | |
| Finland | 58.25 | 4.00 | 43 | 50.39 | 66.11 | |
| Sweden | 67.13 | 5.55 | 23 | 56.23 | 78.02 | |
| United States | 47.13 | 1.51 | 349 | 44.17 | 50.10 | |
| Canada | 54.15 | 6.35 | 16 | 41.68 | 66.63 | |
| Cellulite | ||||||
| Netherlands | 78.70 | 6.72 | 10 | 65.5 | 91.91 | |
| England | 57.72 | 2.93 | 54 | 51.96 | 63.48 | |
| United States | 58.08 | 1.05 | 391 | 56.02 | 60.14 | |
| Canada | 62.8 | 6.27 | 11 | 50.47 | 75.12 | |
| Health‐related quality of life scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean | Std. error | N | 95 % Confidence interval | |
| Psychological function | ||||||
| Denmark | 63.10 | 1.70 | 159 | 59.78 | 66.43 | |
| Poland | 58.04 | 1.51 | 210 | 55.08 | 60.99 | |
| Netherlands | 61.51 | 1.49 | 208 | 58.59 | 64.43 | |
| England | 54.13 | 1.48 | 205 | 51.23 | 57.04 | |
| Germany | 56.88 | 1.47 | 205 | 53.98 | 59.78 | |
| Italy | 55.94 | 1.51 | 204 | 52.99 | 58.89 | |
| Finland | 58.10 | 1.48 | 205 | 55.19 | 62.01 | |
| Sweden | 57.98 | 1.47 | 209 | 55.09 | 60.86 | |
| United States | 57.93 | 0.63 | 1427 | 56.70 | 59.17 | |
| Canada | 55.44 | 2.81 | 58 | 49.94 | 60.94 | |
| Physical function | ||||||
| Denmark | 84.31 | 1.49 | 159 | 81.39 | 87.24 | |
| Poland | 77.10 | 1.32 | 210 | 74.5 | 79.69 | |
| Netherlands | 81.23 | 1.31 | 208 | 78.67 | 83.79 | |
| France | 79.00 | 1.29 | 210 | 76.46 | 81.55 | |
| Belgium | 74.49 | 1.41 | 178 | 71.72 | 77.25 | |
| England | 80.70 | 1.31 | 204 | 78.13 | 83.27 | |
| Germany | 83.23 | 1.29 | 205 | 80.68 | 85.78 | |
| Italy | 83.31 | 1.32 | 204 | 80.72 | 85.89 | |
| Finland | 80.77 | 1.30 | 205 | 78.21 | 83.32 | |
| Sweden | 81.86 | 1.29 | 209 | 79.33 | 84.40 | |
| United States | 83.45 | 0.57 | 1427 | 80.34 | 83.56 | |
| Canada | 79.67 | 2.48 | 58 | 74.81 | 84.54 | |
| Social function | ||||||
| Denmark | 61.16 | 1.43 | 159 | 58.36 | 63.96 | |
| Poland | 56.16 | 1.27 | 210 | 53.68 | 58.64 | |
| Netherlands | 59.53 | 1.25 | 208 | 57.08 | 61.98 | |
| France | 55.81 | 1.24 | 210 | 53.38 | 58.24 | |
| Belgium | 56.41 | 1.35 | 178 | 53.77 | 59.05 | |
| England | 53.64 | 1.25 | 205 | 51.19 | 56.1 | |
| Germany | 54.51 | 1.24 | 205 | 52.08 | 56.95 | |
| Italy | 55.41 | 1.26 | 204 | 52.94 | 57.89 | |
| Finland | 52.39 | 1.25 | 205 | 49.94 | 54.83 | |
| Sweden | 56.80 | 1.24 | 209 | 54.37 | 59.22 | |
| United States | 54.10 | 0.54 | 1427 | 53.04 | 55.16 | |
| Canada | 52.46 | 2.37 | 58 | 47.8 | 57.11 | |
| Sexual function | ||||||
| Denmark | 65.89 | 2.09 | 108 | 61.79 | 70 | |
| Poland | 57.61 | 2.09 | 112 | 53.52 | 61.7 | |
| Netherlands | 67.88 | 1.99 | 119 | 63.98 | 71.78 | |
| France | 58.67 | 1.84 | 140 | 55.06 | 62.27 | |
| Belgium | 58.95 | 1.98 | 121 | 55.07 | 62.83 | |
| England | 60.64 | 1.86 | 134 | 56.99 | 64.29 | |
| Germany | 59.82 | 1.87 | 134 | 55.15 | 62.49 | |
| Italy | 63.77 | 1.81 | 147 | 60.23 | 67.31 | |
| Finland | 57.59 | 1.81 | 142 | 54.04 | 61.15 | |
| Sweden | 63.50 | 1.96 | 120 | 59.66 | 67.34 | |
| United States | 58.46 | 0.75 | 1050 | 57.00 | 59.93 | |
| Canada | 60.05 | 3.12 | 49 | 53.92 | 66.17 | |
| Body image | ||||||
| Denmark | 51.76 | 1.71 | 159 | 48.41 | 55.10 | |
| Poland | 47.46 | 1.52 | 210 | 44.48 | 50.43 | |
| Netherlands | 53.45 | 1.50 | 208 | 50.51 | 56.39 | |
| England | 42.17 | 1.49 | 205 | 39.24 | 45.09 | |
| Germany | 48.74 | 1.49 | 205 | 45.82 | 51.65 | |
| Italy | 47.03 | 1.51 | 204 | 44.06 | 49.99 | |
| Finland | 46.31 | 1.49 | 205 | 43.48 | 49.23 | |
| Sweden | 47.07 | 1.48 | 209 | 44.17 | 49.97 | |
| United States | 45.12 | 0.63 | 1427 | 43.87 | 46.37 | |
| Canada | 44.72 | 2.82 | 58 | 39.19 | 50.26 | |
| Distress | ||||||
| Poland | 38.86 | 1.44 | 210 | 36.03 | 41.69 | |
| France | 37.36 | 1.41 | 209 | 34.60 | 40.11 | |
| Belgium | 37.30 | 1.52 | 178 | 34.32 | 40.29 | |
| England | 43.91 | 1.4 | 205 | 41.16 | 46.66 | |
| Germany | 35.58 | 1.40 | 205 | 32.84 | 38.33 | |
| Italy | 38.39 | 1.43 | 204 | 35.85 | 41.20 | |
| USA | 44.29 | 0.58 | 1429 | 43.15 | 45.42 | |
| Canada | 46.3 | 2.63 | 58 | 41.14 | 51.46 | |
| Work | ||||||
| Denmark | 80.20 | 1.98 | 86 | 76.31 | 84.08 | |
| Netherlands | 76.15 | 3.42 | 26 | 69.44 | 82.87 | |
| England | 71.22 | 1.90 | 90 | 67.50 | 74.94 | |
| United States | 70.41 | 0.62 | 812 | 69.20 | 71.62 | |
| Canada | 61.62 | 3.51 | 25 | 54.74 | 68.51 | |
| Eating‐related concerns scales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Country | Mean | Std. error | N | 95 % Confidence interval | |
| Eating‐related symptoms | ||||||
| Denmark | 82.05 | 1.05 | 159 | 79.99 | 84.11 | |
| Netherlands | 80.29 | 0.93 | 208 | 78.46 | 82.11 | |
| England | 78.06 | 0.90 | 205 | 76.3 | 79.82 | |
| United States | 79.58 | 0.34 | 1429 | 78.92 | 80.26 | |
| Canada | 78.53 | 1.66 | 58 | 75.29 | 81.78 | |
| Eating‐related distress | ||||||
| Denmark | 84.92 | 1.51 | 159 | 81.96 | 87.88 | |
| Netherlands | 83.34 | 1.34 | 208 | 80.71 | 85.96 | |
| England | 77.83 | 1.29 | 205 | 75.30 | 80.36 | |
| United States | 76.83 | 0.49 | 1429 | 75.86 | 77.79 | |
| Canada | 73.12 | 2.38 | 58 | 68.45 | 77.78 | |
| Eating behaviour | ||||||
| Denmark | 55.67 | 0.98 | 159 | 53.74 | 57.59 | |
| Netherlands | 56.79 | 0.87 | 208 | 55.09 | 58.49 | |
| England | 52.17 | 0.84 | 205 | 50.52 | 53.81 | |
| United States | 54.06 | 0.32 | 1429 | 53.43 | 54.69 | |
| Canada | 53.3 | 1.55 | 58 | 50.27 | 56.34 | |
Dalaei F, de Vries CEE, Poulsen L, et al. General population normative scores for interpreting the BODY‐Q . Clinical Obesity. 2022;12(4):e12528. doi: 10.1111/cob.12528
Farima Dalaei and Claire E. E. de Vries have contributed equally to this work and co‐first authors.
Funding information Canadian Institute of Health Research Fellowship Award, Grant/Award Number: 2020‐23; Odense Universitetshospital, Grant/Award Number: A5006; The Region of Southern Denmark, Grant/Award Number: 21/17592
REFERENCES
- 1. World Health Organization . Obesity and overweight. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
- 2. Bray GA, Ryan DH. Evidence‐based weight loss interventions: individualized treatment options to maximize patient outcomes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(suppl 1):50‐62. doi: 10.1111/dom.14200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Wadden TA, Berkowitz RI, Womble LG, et al. Randomized trial of lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy for obesity. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2111‐2120. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Poulsen L, Klassen A, Rose M, et al. Patient‐reported outcomes in weight loss and body contouring surgery: a cross‐sectional analysis using the BODY‐Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:491‐500. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000003605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Poulsen L, Klassen A, Jhanwar S, et al. Patient expectations of bariatric and body contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e694. doi: 10.1097/gox.0000000000000677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. de Vries CEE, Klassen AF, Hoogbergen MM, Alderman AK, Pusic AL. Measuring outcomes in cosmetic abdominoplasty: the BODY‐Q. Clin Plast Surg. 2020;47:429‐436. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2020.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Coulman KD, Howes N, Hopkins J, et al. A comparison of health professionals' and patients' views of the importance of outcomes of bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2016;26:2738‐2746. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2186-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Sharma K, Steele K, Birks M, Jones G, Miller G. Patient‐reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: an introduction and review of clinical applications. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83:247‐252. doi: 10.1097/sap.0000000000001894 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Müller A, Crosby RD, Selle J, et al. Development and evaluation of the Quality of Life for Obesity Surgery (QOLOS) questionnaire. Obes Surg. 2018;28:451‐463. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2864-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Tayyem RM, Atkinson JM, Martin CR. Development and validation of a new bariatric‐specific health‐related quality of life instrument “bariatric and obesity‐specific survey (BOSS)”. J Postgrad Med. 2014;60:357‐361. doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.143952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Fiorillo C, Quero G, Vix M, et al. 6‐month gastrointestinal quality of life (QoL) results after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score analysis. Obes Surg. 2020;30:1944‐1951. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-04419-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. de Vries CEE, Kalff MC, Prinsen CAC, et al. Recommendations on the most suitable quality‐of‐life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2018;19:1395‐1411. doi: 10.1111/obr.12710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Tambone V, Persichetti P. Patient‐reported satisfaction following post‐bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42:1320‐1330. doi: 10.1007/s00266-018-1146-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A, et al. The BODY‐Q: a patient‐reported outcome instrument for weight loss and body contouring treatments. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e679. doi: 10.1097/gox.0000000000000665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Poulsen L, McEvenue G, Klassen A, Hoogbergen M, Sorensen JA, Pusic A. Patient‐reported outcome measures: BODY‐Q. Clin Plast Surg. 2019;46:15‐24. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2018.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. de Vries CEE, Mou D, Poulsen L, et al. Development and validation of new BODY‐Q scales measuring expectations, eating behavior, distress, symptoms, and work life in 4004 adults from 4 countries. Obes Surg. 2021;31:3637‐3645. doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05462-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Klassen A, Cano S, Pusic A. BODY‐Q Framework. 2021. Accessed December 25, 2021. https://qportfolio.org/body-q/
- 18. Poulsen L, Klassen A, Rose M, et al. Psychometric validation of the BODY‐Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1529. doi: 10.1097/gox.0000000000001529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Klassen AF, Kaur M, Breitkopf T, Thoma A, Cano S, Pusic A. Using the BODY‐Q to understand impact of weight loss, excess skin, and the need for body contouring following bariatric surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:77‐86. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000004461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Christopher AN, Morris MP, Patel V, Broach RB, Fischer JP. Abdominal body contouring: does body mass index affect clinical and patient reported outcomes? J Surg Res. 2021;270:348‐358. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.09.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Uimonen M, Repo JP, Homsy P, et al. Health‐related quality of life in patients having undergone abdominoplasty after massive weight loss. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74:2296‐2302. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Mou D, DeVries CEE, Pater N, et al. BODY‐Q patient‐reported outcomes measure (PROM) to assess sleeve gastrectomy vs. Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass: eating behavior, eating‐related distress, and eating‐related symptoms. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:4609‐4617. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07886-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Monpellier VM, de Vries CEE, Janssen IMC, et al. The BAPRAS screening tool for reimbursement in a postbariatric population. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73:1159‐1165. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Paul MA, Opyrchał J, Knakiewicz M, et al. The long‐term effect of body contouring procedures on the quality of life in morbidly obese patients after bariatric surgery. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Prolific . Prolific Academic. 2020. Accessed September 20, 2020. https://prolific.co
- 26. Turk AM. Amazon Mechanical Turk. 2021. Accessed February 09, 2021. https://www.mturk.com
- 27. Klassen AF, Kaur M, Poulsen L, et al. Development of the BODY‐Q chest module evaluating outcomes following chest contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1600‐1608. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000004978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Klassen AF, Kaur MN, de Vries CEE, Poulsen L, Breitkopf T, Pusic A. The BODY‐Q cellulite scale: a development and validation study. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:206‐217. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Poulsen L, Pusic A, Robson S, et al. The BODY‐Q stretch Marks scale: a development and validation study. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38:990‐997. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Persichetti P. Translation and cultural adaptation of the BODY‐Q into Italian. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:326e. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000005821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Hermann N, Klassen A, Luketina R, Vogt PM, Busch KH. German linguistic validation of the BODY‐Q: standardised PRO instrument after bariatric and bodycontouring surgery. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2019;51:255‐261. doi: 10.1055/a-0824-7116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Rillon P, Château F, Klassen A, Tsangaris E, Geneviève P, De Coninck C. French translation and linguistic validation of a new patient reported outcome instrument: the BODY‐Q: a description of the process. Psychiatr Danub. 2019;31:406‐410. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Repo JP, Homsy P, Uimonen MM, Roine RP, Jahkola T, Popov P. Validation of the Finnish version of the BODY‐Q patient‐reported outcome instrument among patients who underwent abdominoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72:933‐940. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Fagevik Olsén M, Biörserud C, Nouh MA, Staalesen T, Elander A. Translation and validation of a Swedish version of the BODY‐Q: a patient‐reported outcome instrument for weight loss and body contouring surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2021;XX:1‐5. doi: 10.1080/2000656x.2021.1956503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Kaur M, Breitkopf T, Pusic AL. Further psychometric validation of the BODY‐Q: ability to detect change following bariatric surgery weight gain and loss. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:227. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0802-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Garratt AM, Stavem K. Measurement properties and normative data for the Norwegian SF‐36: results from a general population survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:51. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0625-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Loge JH, Kaasa S. Short form 36 (SF‐36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scand J Soc Med. 1998;26:250‐258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference‐based measures: EQ‐5D‐3L, EQ‐5D‐5L, and SF‐6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:707‐719. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, et al. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021;24:1015‐1024. doi: 10.1111/hex.13254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Räty LK, Wilde Larsson BM, Söderfeldt BA. Health‐related quality of life in youth: a comparison between adolescents and young adults with uncomplicated epilepsy and healthy controls. J Adolesc Health. 2003;33:252‐258. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00101-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Shaw JW. General population normative data for the EQ‐5D‐3L in the five largest European economies. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1467‐1475. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01326-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Cnossen MC, Polinder S, Vos PE, et al. Comparing health‐related quality of life of Dutch and Chinese patients with traumatic brain injury: do cultural differences play a role? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:72. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0641-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Rajaram N, Lim ZY, Song CV, et al. Patient‐reported outcome measures among breast cancer survivors: a cross‐sectional comparison between Malaysia and high‐income countries. Psychooncology. 2019;28:147‐153. doi: 10.1002/pon.4924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Strodl E, Markey C, Aimé A, et al. A cross‐country examination of emotional eating, restrained eating and intuitive eating: measurement invariance across eight countries. Body Image. 2020;35:245‐254. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Markey CN. Culture and the development of eating disorders: a tripartite model. Eat Disord. 2004;12:139‐156. doi: 10.1080/10640260490445041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Poulsen L, Roessler KK, Rose M, Bakholdt V, Sørensen JA. Quality of life of bariatric and body contouring. Ugeskr Laeger. 2015;177:20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Strickland JC, Stoops WW. The use of crowdsourcing in addiction science research: Amazon mechanical turk. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019;27:1‐18. doi: 10.1037/pha0000235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Chandler J, Shapiro D. Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:53‐81. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Ibarra JL, Agas JM, Lee M, Pan JL, Buttenheim AM. Comparison of online survey recruitment platforms for hard‐to‐reach pregnant smoking populations: feasibility study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7:e101. doi: 10.2196/resprot.8071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Eriksson K, Simpson B. Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgm Decis Mak. 2010;5:159‐163. [Google Scholar]