Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

A short, attribution theory-based video intervention does not reduce weight bias in a nationally representative sample of registered dietitians: a randomized trial

International Journal of Obesity volume 45, pages 787–794 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/objectives

Weight bias among registered dietitians (RDs) is a concern and effective interventions to reduce weight bias are sparse. Our objective was to determine if a short, attribution theory-based online video intervention would reduce weight bias in RDs.

Subjects/methods

Dietitians from a nationally representative sample were recruited for a randomized, parallel-arm study with online surveys at pre-, post-intervention and 1-month follow-up. One hundred and forty-seven RDs who watched one of three videos embedded in an online survey from June to August 2019 were considered for the analysis. RDs were randomized to watch either the intervention, positive control, or negative control video. The primary outcome was the change in the “blame” component of the Anti-Fat Attitude Test (AFAT) from pre-to immediate post-intervention. Differences in changes in AFAT and Implicit Association Test (IAT) scores across treatment groups were assessed via linear models; multiple imputation were performed for missing data.

Results

Baseline demographics, AFAT and IAT scores of the 147 participants who watched a video were not significantly different between the study groups (p > 0.05). The intervention group’s AFAT-blame score reduced by an average of 0.05 between pre- and immediate post-intervention but was not statistically significant (p = 0.76, confidence intervals (CI) = −0.40, 0.30). Furthermore, there were no significant changes for AFAT-social, AFAT-physical subscores, and IAT within or between groups between pre- and immediate post-intervention (p > 0.05). Due to high attrition rates, the changes at 1-month follow-up are not reported.

Conclusions

This study was the first to explore the effectiveness of an online video intervention to reduce weight bias in RDs. This study was unable to detect a significant impact of a short, attribution theory-based video intervention on weight bias in practicing RDs and future larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Participant flow chart.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blüher M. Obesity: global epidemiology and pathogenesis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15:288–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Phelan SM, Burgess DJ, Yeazel MW, Hellerstedt WL, Griffin JM, van Ryn M. Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. Obes Rev. 2015;16:319–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tomiyama AJ, Carr D, Granberg EM, Major B, Robinson E, Sutin AR, et al. How and why weight stigma drives the obesity ‘epidemic’ and harms health. BMC Med. 2018;16:123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alberga AS, Pickering BJ, Alix Hayden K, Ball GD, Edwards A, Jelinski S, et al. Weight bias reduction in health professionals: a systematic review. Clin Obes. 2016;6:175–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Phelan SM, Dovidio JF, Puhl RM, Burgess DJ, Nelson DB, Yeazel MW, et al. Implicit and explicit weight bias in a national sample of 4,732 medical students: the medical student CHANGES study. Obesity. 2014;22:1201–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Puhl R, Wharton C, Heuer C. Weight bias among dietetics students: implications for treatment practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:438–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swift JA, Hanlon S, El-Redy L, Puhl RM, Glazebrook C. Weight bias among UK trainee dietitians, doctors, nurses and nutritionists. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2013;26:395–402.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwartz MB, Chambliss HON, Brownell KD, Blair SN, Billington C. Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obes Res. 2003;11:1033–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Teachman BA, Brownell KD. Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: is anyone immune? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:1525–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. FUCE Jung, Luck-Sikorski C, Wiemers N, Riedel-Heller SG. Dietitians and nutritionists: stigma in the context of obesity. A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0140276-e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diversi TM, Hughes R, Burke KJ. The prevalence and practice impact of weight bias amongst Australian dietitians. Obes Sci Pract. 2016;2:456–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Oberrieder H, Walker R, Monroe D, Adeyanju M. Attitude of dietetics students and registered dietitians toward obesity. J Acad Nutr Diet. 1995;95:914–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Edelstein S, Silva N, Mancini L. Obesity bias among dietitians by using the fat people-thin people implicit association test. Top Clin Nutr. 2009;24:67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mason TB, Smith KE, Lavender JM. Stigma control model of dysregulated eating: a momentary maintenance model of dysregulated eating among marginalized/stigmatized individuals. Appetite. 2019;132:67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hunger JM, Major B, Blodorn A, Miller CT. Weighed down by stigma: how weight-based social identity threat contributes to weight gain and poor health. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2015;9:255–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tomiyama AJ. Weight stigma is stressful. a review of evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma model. Appetite. 2014;82:8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schvey NA, Puhl RM, Brownell KD. The stress of stigma: exploring the effect of weight stigma on cortisol reactivity. Psychosom Med. 2014;76:156–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tomiyama AJ, Epel ES, McClatchey TM, Poelke G, Kemeny ME, McCoy SK, et al. Associations of weight stigma with cortisol and oxidative stress independent of adiposity. Health Psychol. 2014;33:862–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Himmelstein MS, Incollingo Belsky AC, Tomiyama AJ. The weight of stigma: cortisol reactivity to manipulated weight stigma. Obesity. 2015;23:368–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGuigan RD, Wilkinson JM. Obesity and healthcare avoidance: a systematic review. AIMS Public Health. 2015;2:56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alegria Drury CA, Louis M. Exploring the association between body weight, stigma of obesity, and health care avoidance. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2002;14:554–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Terracciano A. Weight discrimination and risk of mortality. Psychol Sci. 2015;26:1803–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The Lancet Public Health. Addressing weight stigma. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4:e168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Puhl R, Brownell KD. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes Res. 2001;9:788–805.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fontaine KR, Cheskin LJ. Optimism and obesity treatment outcomes. J Clin Psychol. 1999;55:141–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Harvey EL, Summerbell CD, Kirk SFL, Hill AJ. Dietitians’ views of overweight and obese people and reported management practices. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2002;15:331–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell K, Crawford D. Management of obesity: attitudes and practices of Australian dietitians. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:701–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Barr SI, Yarker KV, Levy-Milne R, Chapman GE. Canadian dietitians’ views and practices regarding obesity and weight management. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2004;17:503–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis RJ, Cash TF, Bubb-Lewis C. Prejudice toward fat people: the development and validation of the antifat attitudes test. Obes Res. 1997;5:297–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. https://www.R-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  31. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:67.

  32. Wijayatunga NN, Kim Y, Butsch WS, Dhurandhar EJ. The effects of a teaching intervention on weight bias among kinesiology undergraduate students. Int J Obes. 2019;43:2273–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nutter S, Russell-Mayhew S, Alberga AS, Arthur N, Kassan A, Lund DE, et al. Positioning of weight bias: moving towards social justice. J Obes. 2016;2016:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris MB, Walters LC, Waschull S. Altering attitudes and knowledge about obesity. J Soc Psychol. 1991;131:881–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Persky S, Eccleston CP. Impact of genetic causal information on medical students’ clinical encounters with an obese virtual patient: health promotion and social stigma. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41:363–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rukavina PB, Li W, Shen B, Sun H. A service learning based project to change implicit and explicit bias toward obese individuals in kinesiology pre-professionals. Obes Facts. 2010;3:117–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Swift JA, Tischler V, Markham S, Gunning I, Glazebrook C, Beer C, et al. Are anti-stigma films a useful strategy for reducing weight bias among trainee healthcare professionals? Results of a pilot randomized control trial. Obes Facts. 2013;6:91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by startup funds from Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. We acknowledge Sydney Han for her contribution to editing the videos.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA

    Nadeeja N. Wijayatunga

  2. Well Done Nutrition, LLC, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Dylan Bailey

  3. Department of Nutrition and Food Science, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Seth S. Klobodu

  4. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    John A. Dawson & Katie Knight

  5. Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 43011, USA

    Emily J. Dhurandhar

Authors
  1. Nadeeja N. Wijayatunga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dylan Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seth S. Klobodu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John A. Dawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katie Knight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emily J. Dhurandhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily J. Dhurandhar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wijayatunga, N.N., Bailey, D., Klobodu, S.S. et al. A short, attribution theory-based video intervention does not reduce weight bias in a nationally representative sample of registered dietitians: a randomized trial. Int J Obes 45, 787–794 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-021-00740-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-021-00740-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links