Engaging stakeholder communities as body image intervention partners: The Body Project as a case example

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd Despite recent advances in developing evidence-based psychological interventions, substantial changes are needed in the current system of intervention delivery to impact mental health on a global scale (Kazdin & Blase, 2011). Prevention offers one avenue for reaching large populations because prevention interventions often are amenable to scaling-up strategies, such as task-shifting to lay providers, which further facilitate community stakeholder partnerships. This paper discusses the dissemination and implementation of the Body Project, an evidence-based body image prevention program, across 6 diverse stakeholder partnerships that span academic, non-profit and business sectors at national and international levels. The paper details key elements of the Body Project that facilitated partnership development, dissemination and implementation, including use of community-based participatory research methods and a blended train-the-trainer and task-shifting approach. We observed consistent themes across partnerships, including: sharing decision making with community partners, engaging of community leaders as gatekeepers, emphasizing strengths of community partners, working within the community's structure, optimizing non-traditional and/or private financial resources, placing value on cost-effectiveness and sustainability, marketing the program, and supporting flexibility and creativity in developing strategies for evolution within the community and in research. Ideally, lessons learned with the Body Project can be generalized to implementation of other body image and eating disorder prevention programs

Fat talk, old talk, or both? Association of negative body talk with mental health, body dissatisfaction, and quality of life in men and women

Abstract Background Little research has investigated the harmful effects of old talk—negative age-related body talk—on mental health and quality of life despite substantial research examining fat talk. Old talk also has only been evaluated in women and in relation to few outcomes. Of note, old talk and fat talk are strongly correlated, suggesting possible overlap in elements that drive negative outcomes. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to investigate the extent that old talk and fat talk contribute to negative mental health and quality of life outcomes when examined in the same model and when interacting with age. Methods Adults (N = 773) ages 18–91 completed an online survey assessing eating disorder pathology, body dissatisfaction, depression, aging anxiety, general anxiety, quality of life, and demographics. Results While fat talk and old talk were correlated with almost all outcome variables, fat talk was more commonly significantly associated with poorer outcomes than old talk. Additionally, the relationship between fat talk and old talk with poorer mental health was affected by age in men, but not women. Conclusions Future research is warranted to decipher the individual effects of old talk and fat talk on mental health and quality of life across the adult lifespan

Methodology for task-shifting evidence-based psychological treatments to non-licenced/lay health workers: protocol for a systematic review

Introduction ‘Task-shifting’ or ‘task-sharing’ is an effective strategy for delivering behavioural healthcare in lower resource communities. However, little is known regarding the actual steps (methods) in carrying out a task-shifting project. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review that will identify steps in adapting an evidence-based psychological treatment for delivery by lay/non-licenced personnel.Methods and analysis A systematic review of peer-reviewed, published studies involving a non-licenced, non-specialist (eg, community health worker, promotor/a, peer and lay person) delivering an evidence-based psychological treatment for adults will be conducted. Study design of selected articles must include a statistical comparison (eg, randomised controlled trials, quasiexperimental trials, pre–post designs and pragmatic trials). Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo and Google Scholar will be searched from 2000 to 2020. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, and publication bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane GRADE approach. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies, and a summary table following Proctor’s framework for operationalising implementation strategies will be included. This protocol was developed following the 2015 guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols.Ethics and dissemination This review will analyse data from published studies only; thus, it will not require institutional board review. Findings will be presented at conferences, to the broader community via the Community Health Worker Translational Advisory Board and social media, and the final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal