Weight Bias Interventions for Healthcare Professionals: An Integrative Review

To describe interventions to mitigate weight bias among practicing healthcare providers and examine their effectiveness.

An integrative review.

The framework of Whittemore and Knafl (2005) was utilised to identify and synthesise studies of weight bias interventions. Covidence reference management software facilitated screening using predetermined eligibility criteria that is, published in peer-reviewed journals, reported in English, and described outcomes for weight bias mitigation interventions among healthcare providers with a professional practice licence. We evaluated study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Tools for qualitative and quantitative studies.

Five databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, EBSCOhost, APA PsycINFO, and Scopus) in July 2024.

Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Four themes emerged: (1) active learning lessens weight bias more than passive learning, (2) multicomponent approaches yield better outcomes, (3) healthcare providers are willing to change their practices, and (4) explicit attitudes and beliefs are more amenable to change than implicit ones. Four sub-themes within theme one included the use of in-person workgroups; films, computer-based, and podcast delivery; written modules; and physical characteristic modifications, such as the use of an adiposity empathy suit. Intervention designs using a theory-based, active learning approach with repeated sessions were most successful at decreasing negative weight-biased attitudes and beliefs.

Interventions that effectively reduce weight bias among practicing healthcare providers vary, yet evidence suggests that weight bias mitigation is achievable. These interventions offer strategies to improve patient-centred care among patients living with obesity.

Healthcare providers often display weight bias. This review synthesises information on effective interventions for reducing bias, which may limit the subsequent negative patient outcomes associated with it.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was the structure used for this paper.

There were no patient or public contributions.