Assessing weight bias among Turkish dietitians: determinants and impact on professional practice.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-06883-8
Ezgi Bellikci-Koyu, Yasemin Karaagac, Şule Demirci
{"title":"Assessing weight bias among Turkish dietitians: determinants and impact on professional practice.","authors":"Ezgi Bellikci-Koyu, Yasemin Karaagac, Şule Demirci","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-06883-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Weight bias, whether explicit or implicit, has a detrimental effect on the physiological and psychological well-being of individuals, thereby complicating obesity management, particularly in healthcare settings. The objective of this study was to examine weight bias among Turkish dietitians. A further aim was to investigate the effect of the patient's weight status on the dietitian's assessment and dietetic practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional web-based study analyzed data from 411 Turkish dietitians. The participants completed a series of sociodemographic information, anthropometric measurements, and scales, including the Fat Phobia Scale (FPS) and Attitudes Toward Obese Persons Scale (ATOP). After completing the scales, the dietitians were randomly assigned to a case study on lactose intolerance via an online survey platform. All patient information was identical, except for the patient's weight and photography. The objective of the case study was to evaluate how the body weight of a patient who consulted a dietitian for a reason unrelated to the body weight affected professional practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 66.9% of dietitians exhibited fat phobia. While men had higher FPS scores than women (p = 0.022), dietitians with a family history of obesity (p = 0.032) had lower FPS scores. BMI was negatively associated with FPS scores (β = -0.036, p = 0.026). However, dietitians with a history of feeling overweight had higher FPS scores (p = 0.024). Dietitians' assessments of cases differed according to the patient's body weight status. Although, there were no statistically significant differences in FPS and ATOP scores between dietitians assigned to cases with higher or lower body weight (p > 0.05 for each), those assessing the case with higher body weight rated patients' nutritional (p = 0.025) and biochemical status (p < 0.001) as worse and were more inclined to recommend weight management strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The issue of fat phobia and weight bias represents a significant concern among dietitians, with notable impacts on their professional practice. It is therefore of crucial importance to address and resolve these issues within the context of dietetic education.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT06624111 (submitted 01/10/2024).</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"307"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863906/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06883-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Weight bias, whether explicit or implicit, has a detrimental effect on the physiological and psychological well-being of individuals, thereby complicating obesity management, particularly in healthcare settings. The objective of this study was to examine weight bias among Turkish dietitians. A further aim was to investigate the effect of the patient's weight status on the dietitian's assessment and dietetic practice.

Methods: This cross-sectional web-based study analyzed data from 411 Turkish dietitians. The participants completed a series of sociodemographic information, anthropometric measurements, and scales, including the Fat Phobia Scale (FPS) and Attitudes Toward Obese Persons Scale (ATOP). After completing the scales, the dietitians were randomly assigned to a case study on lactose intolerance via an online survey platform. All patient information was identical, except for the patient's weight and photography. The objective of the case study was to evaluate how the body weight of a patient who consulted a dietitian for a reason unrelated to the body weight affected professional practices.

Results: A total of 66.9% of dietitians exhibited fat phobia. While men had higher FPS scores than women (p = 0.022), dietitians with a family history of obesity (p = 0.032) had lower FPS scores. BMI was negatively associated with FPS scores (β = -0.036, p = 0.026). However, dietitians with a history of feeling overweight had higher FPS scores (p = 0.024). Dietitians' assessments of cases differed according to the patient's body weight status. Although, there were no statistically significant differences in FPS and ATOP scores between dietitians assigned to cases with higher or lower body weight (p > 0.05 for each), those assessing the case with higher body weight rated patients' nutritional (p = 0.025) and biochemical status (p < 0.001) as worse and were more inclined to recommend weight management strategies.

Conclusions: The issue of fat phobia and weight bias represents a significant concern among dietitians, with notable impacts on their professional practice. It is therefore of crucial importance to address and resolve these issues within the context of dietetic education.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT06624111 (submitted 01/10/2024).

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估土耳其营养师的体重偏差:决定因素和对专业实践的影响。
背景:体重偏差,无论是显性的还是隐性的,都会对个体的生理和心理健康产生不利影响,从而使肥胖管理复杂化,特别是在医疗保健机构。本研究的目的是检查土耳其营养师的体重偏差。进一步的目的是调查患者的体重状况对营养师评估和饮食实践的影响。方法:这项基于网络的横断面研究分析了来自411名土耳其营养师的数据。参与者完成了一系列的社会人口学信息、人体测量和量表,包括肥胖恐惧症量表(FPS)和对肥胖人士的态度量表(ATOP)。完成量表后,营养师通过在线调查平台被随机分配到乳糖不耐症的案例研究中。除了患者的体重和照片外,所有患者的信息都是相同的。本案例研究的目的是评估因与体重无关的原因咨询营养师的患者的体重如何影响专业实践。结果:66.9%的营养师有肥胖恐惧症。虽然男性的FPS得分高于女性(p = 0.022),但有肥胖家族史的营养师的FPS得分较低(p = 0.032)。BMI与FPS评分呈负相关(β = -0.036, p = 0.026)。然而,有超重史的营养师FPS得分更高(p = 0.024)。根据患者的体重状况,营养师对病例的评估有所不同。虽然,分配给体重较高或较低病例的营养师在FPS和ATOP评分上没有统计学上的显著差异(p < 0.05),但评估体重较高病例的营养师对患者的营养(p = 0.025)和生化状态进行了评分(p < 0.05)。结论:肥胖恐惧症和体重偏见问题是营养师非常关注的问题,对他们的专业实践有显著影响。因此,在饮食教育的背景下处理和解决这些问题至关重要。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov注册号:NCT06624111(提交日期:01/10/2024)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative study identifying leadership challenges encountered in real-world scholarly projects within a faculty development program. Ultrasound reliance and landmark-based proficiency in vascular access training: a multicenter cross-sectional survey of anesthesia trainees and teaching faculty in Eastern China. Current practices in obstetrics and gynecology transition to residency courses: graduates' perspectives on activities, topics, and overall educational benefit. Exploring the use of AI-generated counterfactual chest X-rays to enhance diagnostic learning in medical education. M1ündlich - S(t)imulation of competency-oriented learning in physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1