A body image training program for health professionals: A single group pre-post evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals (HPs) often overlook the complexity of body image. The Body Image Fundamentals program was designed to enhance HPs' knowledge and skills in managing body image concerns. The online program was evaluated over 16 weeks using a single-group pre-post design based on Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Model. Participants (dietitians, health coaches, fitness trainers, and nutritionists) completed pre-post surveys featuring closed and open-ended questions. Survey items assessed program acceptability (Level 1: Reactions) measuring satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and engagement, as well as feasibility (e.g., completion rates). Changes in knowledge and perceived skill acquisition (Level 2: Learning) and the application of knowledge (Level 3: Behavior) were assessed as preliminary indicators of the program’s effectiveness. Pre-post changes in participants' own body image and related attitudes were examined as secondary outcomes. Of the 127 participants who completed the initial survey, 52 (41 %) finished the post-program survey and completed 72.1 % of the eight modules. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction, usefulness, and understandability (ratings >92/100 %). Significant changes included increased body image knowledge ( d =.88) and body appreciation ( d =.42), reduced idealization of thin ( d =.66) and athletic bodies ( d =.73), and decreased anti-fat attitudes ( d =.43). Open-ended responses indicated intended and on-going individualized and compassionate practices with clients/patients, while also highlighting the need for clearer guidelines on applying learned skills in practice. Results suggest the program has the potential to improve HPs' ability to address body image concerns. • Participants reported good engagement and excellent satisfaction and usefulness of the program. • Significant pre-post improvements on a body image knowledge assessment quiz. • Significant pre-post reductions in thin and athletic ideals, and anti-fat attitudes. • Significant pre-post increases in body appreciation. • Feedback suggests the need for clearer guidelines on applying learned skills in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".