Stigma is a problem for individuals with eating disorders (EDs), forming a barrier to disclosure and help-seeking. Interventions to reduce ED stigma may help remove these barriers; however, it is not known which strategies (e.g., explaining etiology to reduce blame, contact with a person with an ED, or educating about ED) are effective in reducing stigma and related outcomes. This review described effectiveness of intervention strategies, and identified gaps in the literature. A search of four databases was performed using the terms (eating disorder* OR bulimi* OR anorexi* OR binge-eating disorder) AND (stigma* OR stereotyp* OR beliefs OR negative attitudes) AND (program OR experiment OR intervention OR education), with additional texts sought through LISTSERVs. Two raters screened papers, extracted data, and assessed quality. Stigma reduction strategies and study characteristics were examined in critical narrative synthesis. Exploratory meta-analysis compared the effects of biological and sociocultural explanations of EDs on attitudinal stigma. Eighteen papers were eligible for narrative synthesis, with four also eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Biological explanations reduced stigma relative to other explanations, including sociocultural explanations in meta-analysis (g = .47, p < .001). Combined education and contact interventions improved stigma relative to control groups or over time. Most studies examined Anorexia Nervosa (AN) stigma and had mostly female, undergraduate participants. Despite apparent effectiveness, research should verify that biological explanations do not cause unintentional harm. Future research should evaluate in vivo contact, directly compare education and contact strategies, and aim to generalize findings across community populations.

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a common quality indicator for hospital care, and preventing PIs often requires patient engagement; as such, Australian consensus research has recommended that high‐quality education materials be made to patients for PIs via hospital networks. The purpose of the present study was to assess the availability and accuracy of patient education materials on PIs in publicly available hospital websites in Victoria, Australia. Two independent coders assessed 212 websites for content on PI prevention and management, analysing availability and accuracy of PI definitions, risk factors, preventive strategies, referral, visual tools, consumer endorsement, information for family/carers, and translation on community languages. A greater proportion of hospitals did not have any patient education materials on PI prevention publicly available, with private hospitals (compared with public) and metropolitan hospitals (compared to rural) more likely to have materials available on their sites. The available materials contained accurate messages on PI defining characteristics and risk factors for PIs, although there was considerable variability on the availability of other information. Our findings suggest a significant deficit in the availability of educational materials for acute care patients and their families. There is a need for evidence‐based, consumer‐endorsed, uniform materials on all hospital websites to prevent PIs in acute care.

The relationship between gambling advertising and 2 gambling attitudes, intentions and behaviours: 3 a critical and meta-analytic review 4

There is increasing scientific and public support for the notion that some foods may be addictive, and that poor weight control and obesity may, for some people, stem from having a food addiction. However, it remains unclear how a food addiction model (FAM) explanation for obesity and weight control will affect weight stigma. In two experiments (N = 530 and N = 690), we tested the effect of a food addiction explanation for obesity and weight control on weight stigma. In Experiment 1, participants who received a FAM explanation for weight control and obesity reported lower weight stigma scores (e.g., less dislike of ‘fat people’, and lower personal willpower blame) than those receiving an explanation emphasizing diet and exercise (F(4,525) = 7.675, p = 0.006; and F(4,525) = 5.393, p = 0.021, respectively). In Experiment 2, there was a significant group difference for the dislike of ‘fat people’ stigma measure (F(5,684) = 5.157, p = 0.006), but not for personal willpower weight stigma (F(5,684) = 0.217, p = 0.81). Participants receiving the diet and exercise explanation had greater dislike of ‘fat people’ than those in the FAM explanation and control group (p values < 0.05), with no difference between the FAM and control groups (p > 0.05). The FAM explanation for weight control and obesity did not increase weight stigma and resulted in lower stigma than the diet and exercise explanation that attributes obesity to personal control. The results highlight the importance of health messaging about the causes of obesity and the need for communications that do not exacerbate weight stigma.