BACKGROUND: People living with obesity receive treatment services from health professionals for their weight or other health needs. In order for the students of the Faculty of Health Sciences, who will be a member of the health team in the future, to raise awareness of the society, it is necessary to first determine their obesity prejudices and eating habits.
METHODS: The study is a cross-sectional and descriptive research. The study data were collected from 406 students studying at the Faculty of Health Sciences by online questionnaire method using a personal characteristics identification form, GAMS 27-Obesity Bias Scale and University Students Eating Behavior Scale (USEBS). The data were analyzed with SPSS 26 statistical software.
RESULTS: In this study, all students were found to be prone to prejudice according to the mean total score of the Obesity Bias Scale and Obesity Bias Scale was higher in female students studying in perfusion department. In the sub-dimensions of the University Students Eating Behavior Scale, the enjoyment of food score was found to have the highest mean score.
CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the study, there is a need to develop educational planning that will both increase the awareness of university students about the relationship between eating behaviors and obesity and eliminate obesity prejudice tendencies due to the fact that they are educated to provide services in the field of health.

BACKGROUND: People who use drugs face entrenched stigma, which fosters shame, restricts service access, and exacerbates inequalities. The use of mass media in anti-stigma interventions offers an opportunity to challenge stigmatising attitudes at scale. There are, however, inconsistencies in messaging approaches used in mass media anti-stigma interventions, and how authors conceptualise and measure \'stigma\'.
METHODS: This scoping review maps literature on the development and/or evaluation of mass media interventions intended to reduce stigma towards people who use drugs. We systematically searched seven databases for reports about: (i) people who use drugs, (ii) stigma, (iii) mass media. We charted data about intervention (i) subjects and recipients, (ii) format, (iii) authors, (iv) content; and (v) conceptualisation and measurement of stigma. We narratively synthesised findings with qualitative content analyses.
RESULTS: From 14,256 records, we included 49 reports about 35 interventions. 25/35 were from the last five years and 19/35 were from the United States. Intended recipients included the public and/or specified sub-populations, often including healthcare workers. Most interventions were intended to reduce stigma towards people with patterns of drug use perceived to be problematic, as opposed to people who use drugs in general. Interventions ranged from single pieces of media to complex multi-format campaigns. People who use(d) drugs contributed to 22/35 interventions. Professionals working in medical disciplines co-authored 29/35 interventions. Intervention content often had a medical focus, describing dependence as a \'disease\' or medical issue, and emphasised the benefits of recovery. Other interventions, however, criticised medical framings. In some interventions drug use and people who use drugs were described in markedly negative terms. \'Stigma\' was often under-theorised, and measurement approaches were inconsistent, with 42 instruments used to measure phenomena associated with stigma across 19 quantitative evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistencies in approaches to reduce and measure stigma, potentially reflecting different motivations for intervention development. The primary motivation of many interventions was seemingly to promote drug service engagement and recovery.

暂无摘要。

In this registered report, we propose to stress-test existing models for predicting the ideology-prejudice association, which varies in size and direction across target groups. Previous models of this relationship use the perceived ideology, status, and choice in group membership of target groups to predict the ideology-prejudice association across target groups. These analyses show that models using only the perceived ideology of the target group are more accurate and parsimonious in predicting the ideology-prejudice association than models using perceived status, choice, and all of the characteristics in a single model. Here, we stress-test the original models by testing the models\' predictive utility with new measures of explicit prejudice, a comparative operationalization of prejudice, the Implicit Association Test, and additional target groups. In Study 1, we propose to directly test the previous models using an absolute measure of prejudice that closely resembles the measure used in the original study. This will tell us if the models replicate with distinct, yet conceptually similar measures of prejudice. In Study 2, we propose to develop new ideology-prejudice models for a comparative operationalization of prejudice using both explicit measures and the Implicit Association Test. We will then test these new models using data from the Ideology 2.0 project collected by Project Implicit. We do not have full access to this data yet, but upon acceptance of our Stage 1 registered report, we will gain access to the complete dataset. Currently, we have access to an exploratory subset of the data that we use to demonstrate the feasibility of the study, but its limited number of target groups prevents conclusions from being made.

The number of health care educational institutions/organizations adopting implicit bias training is growing. Our systematic review of 77 studies (published 1 January 2003 through 21 September 2022) investigated how implicit bias training in health care is designed/delivered and whether gaps in knowledge translation compromised the reliability and validity of the training. The primary training target was race/ethnicity (49.3%); trainings commonly lack specificity on addressing implicit prejudice or stereotyping (67.5%). They involved a combination of hands-on and didactic approaches, lasting an average of 343.15 min, often delivered in a single day (53.2%). Trainings also exhibit translational gaps, diverging from current literature (10 to 67.5%), and lack internal (99.9%), face (93.5%), and external (100%) validity. Implicit bias trainings in health care are characterized by bias in methodological quality and translational gaps, potentially compromising their impacts.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine led to a major humanitarian crisis resulting in many Ukrainians seeking refugee status in European countries. Unlike the positive attitudes towards Ukrainian refugees, Afghan refugees who were also required to leave their country following the Taliban\'s takeover of Afghanistan, received a negative reaction from the same European countries. Examining similar crises, a year apart, where people fled perilous situations in their countries, reveals contrasting reactions that emphasize the need to understand factors driving diverse public attitudes. Integrated Threat Theory (ITT), which posits that perceived threats can lead to prejudice and negative attitudes, may elucidate mechanisms behind opposing reactions towards Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. This study explores whether symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, fear of terrorism, and political orientation are differentially related to attitudes towards Afghan and Ukrainian refugees in 250 European participants. Results demonstrate that participants hold more positive attitudes towards Ukrainian refugees compared to Afghan refugees. All the aforementioned factors predicted attitudes towards Afghan refugees, but only symbolic threats predicted attitudes towards Ukrainian refugees. Ethnicity and religiosity explain the relationship between symbolic threats and attitudes towards Afghan refugees. Western European participants show a stronger link between terrorism fear and negative views on Afghan refugees than Eastern Europeans, possibly due to higher terrorism rates in the West. Thus, attitudes towards refugees are intricate, but the study emphasizes the role of ITT, terrorism fear, politics, ethnicity, religiosity, and region. The findings could refine policies, stressing the need to address these factors for fostering inclusive, empathetic European societies.

Hate crime is increasingly a familiar term within the domains of scholarship, policy, and activism as the harms associated with acts of targeted hostility continue to pose complex, global challenges. However, an exclusively Western-centric focus has done little to foster transnational conversations or to shape conceptual or legal frameworks in parts of the world where the challenges posed by hate and prejudice remain underexplored despite their devastating consequences. This article considers how the complexities and specificities of the Indian context disrupt the dominant assumptions of conventional hate crime frameworks. In doing so, it highlights the value of extending conventional Westernized models of thinking to different environments with different sets of challenges. Through its analysis of caste crimes and the factors that reinforce a prevailing institutional and cultural backdrop of political indifference, bureaucratic resistance, and public skepticism, the article illustrates why and how key elements of the Western framework remain ill-suited to the Indian context. The authors call instead for a creative translation of the hate crime concept, which accommodates the nature of violence within specific social contexts, and which emphasizes the institutional features that can mitigate the limitations of state capacity and intent. The process of translation has value in harnessing the benefits of the hate crime concept within countries, which lack a common framework to foster shared understanding and prioritization in relation to tackling contemporary expressions of hate. At the same time, this process enriches prevailing thinking, dismantles stereotypes, and challenges scholars of targeted violence to familiarize themselves with the unfamiliar.

There has been increasing debate around how or if race and ethnicity should be used in medical research-including the conceptualization of race as a biological entity, a social construct, or a proxy for racism. The objectives of this narrative review are to identify and synthesize reported racial and ethnic inequalities in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) and develop informed recommendations for racial and ethnic inequity research in ob/gyn. A reproducible search of the 8 highest impact ob/gyn journals was conducted. Articles published between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023 containing keywords related to racial and ethnic disparities, bias, prejudice, inequalities, and inequities were included (n=318). Data were abstracted and summarized into 4 themes: 1) access to care, 2) adherence to national guidelines, 3) clinical outcomes, and 4) clinical trial diversity. Research related to each theme was organized topically under the headings i) obstetrics, ii) reproductive medicine, iii) gynecologic cancer, and iv) other. Additionally, interactive tables were developed. These include data on study timeline, population, location, and results for every article. The tables enable readers to filter by journal, publication year, race and ethnicity, and topic. Numerous studies identified adverse reproductive outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities as compared to white patients, which persist despite adjusting for differential access to care, socioeconomic or lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics. These include higher maternal morbidity and mortality among Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients; reduced success during fertility treatments for Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian patients; and lower survival rates and lower likelihood of receiving guideline concordant care for gynecological cancers for non-White patients. We conclude that many racial and ethnic inequities in ob/gyn cannot be fully attributed to patient characteristics or access to care. Research focused on explaining these disparities based on biological differences incorrectly reinforces the notion of race as a biological trait. More research that deconstructs race and assesses efficacy of interventions to reduce these disparities is needed.

OBJECTIVE: Sexual minority women (SMW) experience inequities in health outcomes. The extant literature consistently suggests that SMW are much less likely than their heterosexual peers to engage in cervical screening. Using participant\'s voices, the focus of this study was to explore the ways in which cervical screening rates for SMW might be improved.
METHODS: An online survey was completed by SMW (N = 177) aged 25-69 based in Aotearoa New Zealand and representing a range of sexual identities, ethnicities, and geographical regions. The analysis presented here was derived from open-ended qualitative responses to a single survey item: What do you think could be done to encourage more SMW (lesbians, wahine takatāpui, bisexual women, etc.) to engage in smear testing?
RESULTS: Analysis of the data generated three main themes around how public health services could encourage more SMW to engage in cervical screening: Inclusive health services, clarity of information, and targeted health promotion.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed that the inherent heteronormativity among health care professionals and the lack of clear and consistent information specific to SMW may be key factors contributing to lower rates of engagement in screening. SO WHAT?: Given that not engaging in screening is the main risk factor for cervical cancer, it is imperative that active consideration is given to these issues with a view to increasing participation rates among SMW.

A significant proportion of individuals with psychiatric disorders face dual challenges such as managing the symptoms and disabilities of their conditions and enduring stigma arising from misconceptions about mental illness. This stigma denies them quality-of-life opportunities, such as access to satisfactory healthcare services, better employment, safer housing, and social affiliations. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of stigmatization on psychiatric illness outcomes, particularly its influence on treatment adherence, treatment-seeking behavior, and care outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of 39 studies published between 2010 and 2024, focusing on the effects of stigmatization on psychiatric illness outcomes. The review utilized robust methodology following Cochrane guidance and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including studies from 2010 to 2024 obtained from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, with most studies rated as moderate to high quality. The findings indicate that stigma in psychiatric illness is closely associated with several factors, including illness duration (mean effect size = 0.42, p < 0.05), frequency of clinic visits (mean reduction = 2.3 visits/year), and diagnosis of psychotic disorders (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.20-2.65). Stigma manifests through misinformation, prejudice, and discrimination, leading to significant barriers to accessing and adhering to psychiatric treatment, thereby worsening health outcomes. It leads to delays in accessing healthcare, poor adherence to medication and follow-up, and negative psychiatric health outcomes, including disempowerment, reduced self-efficacy, increased psychiatric symptoms, and decreased quality of life. Also, stigma extends to caregivers and healthcare professionals, complicating care delivery. This review highlights the need for effective interventions and strategies to address stigma, emphasizing the importance of educational interventions to mitigate the adverse effects of public stigma. Understanding the multifaceted nature of stigma is crucial for developing targeted approaches to improve psychiatric care outcomes and ensure better mental health services for individuals with mental illnesses.