SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2025
Efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing explicit and implicit weight bias in healthcare students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessing Weight Stigma Interventions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current obesity reports · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing explicit and implicit weight bias in healthcare students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing underlying processes of implicit weight bias: a diffusion model analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Attitudes, stigma and knowledge on obesity in Mexico: a national cross-sectional survey of the general population and healthcare professionals living with or without obesity.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Obesity simulation suits in health professions education: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Addressing Explicit Weight Bias in Medical Students: Contribution of Demographics and Educational Factors.Obesity facts · 2026Article
- Implementation of weight-inclusive care in primary care: a mixed-methods pilot study of a brief, behavior-focused provider training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Weight Bias in Nursing: A Pilot Study on Feasibility and Negative Attitude Assessment Among Primary Care Nurses.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Attitudes and Behaviors of Nurses and Nursing Students Toward Patients with Obesity: A Systematized Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Chutes and ladders: collaborating across disciplines to improve mental and physical healthcare for larger-bodied people.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing weight bias in healthcare students, and to explore factors that may impact intervention success. A systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted by including studies that examined the efficacy of weight bias reduction interventions for healthcare students. Of the 3463 journal articles and dissertations screened, 67 studies (within 64 records) met inclusion criteria, with 35 studies included in the meta-analyses (explicit = 35, implicit [and explicit] = 10) and 32 studies included in the narrative synthesis (explicit = 34, implicit [and explicit] = 3). Weight bias interventions had a small but positive impact, g = -0.31 (95% CI = -0.43 to -0.19, p < 0.001), in reducing students' explicit weight bias but there was no intervention effect on implicit weight bias, g = -0.12 (95% CI = -0.26 to 0.02, p = 0.105). There was considerable heterogeneity in the pooled effect for explicit bias (I
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.