ArticleJournal of obesity2026
A Scoping Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments Assessing Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs About Adult Obesity.
Article in Journal of obesity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between knowledge, attitudes and beliefs (KAB) is complex and reciprocal. Although KAB are internal constructs, they collectively influence behaviour without necessarily determining it. In obesity management, understanding healthcare professionals' (HCPs') KAB about adult obesity is crucial. However, comprehensive and valid outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are necessary to accurately reflect their perspectives.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and evaluate published OMIs that assess HCPs' KAB about adult obesity, utilising the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.
methodsFollowing the COSMIN methodology and the five-stage scoping review framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and refined by Levac and Colquhoun, reviewers searched six databases-Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar-for studies published from 1 January 1991 to 1 May 2025. Inclusion criteria required studies to focus on HCPs' KAB, OMI development, psychometric evaluation or application in relation to adult obesity. Two reviewers screened the literature and assessed methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and evidence quality was graded with a modified GRADE approach.
resultsA total of 9213 records were identified, 45 articles were evaluated for full-text eligibility, and 4 articles were selected for final review. According to COSMIN criteria, the methodological quality of these studies was deemed inadequate. None demonstrated sufficient content validity, with common limitations including unrepresentative samples of HCPs' and poorly defined constructs. As per the COSMIN 'stop rule'," no further psychometric evaluations were conducted.
conclusionThere is a significant gap in the availability of rigorously developed instruments for assessing HCPs' KAB about adult obesity. There is a clear need for more contemporary and reliable OMIs that adhere to quality standards, such as those outlined in the COSMIN framework.
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.