School‐Based Body Image Programming: A Critical Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature on school‐based programs that have been developed to address body image among adolescents. A literature review on this topic has not been conducted since 2013, warranting the need for an updated review since the proliferation of social media and other societal changes. Articles were included if they were published from 2011–2022; 2011 to 2022; described programs implemented in secondary schools in the United States or Canada; and included at least one measure of body image improvement, awareness, or knowledge in the program assessment. The article search involved identifying keywords and applying them to searches in specific databases, including Academic Search Complete, ERIC, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations, PsycInfo, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search parameters yielded eleven articles, which included studies with both co‐ed and female‐only samples. None included gender‐inclusive curriculum or survey demographics. For most studies, researchers used small sample sizes, self‐reported data, and single‐site samples. Most included a measure on eating disorder risk in addition to one or more body image measures. Researchers should conduct future studies with larger and more diverse samples. Areas of need include implementing comprehensive programs in the school setting, promoting inclusivity to incorporate gender identity/fluidity, and using experimental research designs with longitudinal assessments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".