Search

Organized in the US in 1917, dietetics emerged from the discipline of home economics as an "acceptable" area of study for women. Since its inception, dietetics has lacked diversity; most dietetics professionals identify as white, cisgender, heterosexual, middle to upper-middle-class women. In the supervised practice setting, interns are expected to dress "professionally" and follow health/safety protocols. Given the field's history, it is reasonable to suspect that dress codes—rules/expectations regarding what employees/participants can/cannot wear—for dietetics programs may be problematic. To explore this, we conducted a discourse analysis using a Foucauldian feminist approach, drawing on the notion of governmentality. Eighty-five dietetics dress codes, supplemented with survey questions, from US-based accredited dietetics education programs were analyzed. Three primary discursive effects were identified: "Invisibilizing" informs dietetics students/interns how to be professional and modest. "Protecting" highlights dress to promote health and safety. "Normalizing" privileges conforming to thin, cisgender, white European women of higher SES. These findings show how the dress codes reify a "model" dietitian and privilege/oppress/discipline some bodies over others, supporting criticisms of dietetics dress codes as discriminatory and oppressing/privileging select societal groups. Recommendations are provided to address biases and prevent dress codes from negatively impacting diversity/inclusion in the profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fruit and vegetable intake (FVI), a modifiable risk factor for chronic diseases, is lower in low socioeconomic status (SES) populations. Implementation intentions (a specific type of planning that extends the Theory of Planned Behavior) have been studied to improve FVI, but not exclusively with low SES groups. Using mixed methods, we evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an implementation intention intervention (versus a general plan) to increase FVI in women with low SES. For the pilot randomized controlled trial, demographics, body mass index, attitude, perceived behavioral control, goal intention strength, and FVI were measured at baseline and FVI again 1 month following the intervention. Feasibility data were collected for recruitment, randomization, retention, and assessment procedures and compared to predetermined targets. Semi-structured interview data was analyzed for emergent themes regarding acceptability of the trial. Preliminary efficacy of the intervention to improve FVI was analyzed descriptively. Feasibility targets were met for randomization (100% vs. ≥80% target), retention (93.5% vs. ≥70% target) and the assessment metrics missing data points (2% vs. ≤10% target) and days from intervention to follow up (mean=69.2, sd=42.6 vs. <180 days). Targets for recruitment were not met with the exception of participants giving informed consent (100% vs. ≥70% target). Participants described the intervention as enjoyable and reported behavioral constructs outside of those measured as important to improve FVI. Limited efficacy analysis suggested that both groups increased their FVI (experimental: +0.17 servings per day, 95% CI: -0.85, 1.20; control: +0.50 servings per day, 95% CI: -0.56, 1.58). Further research which examines interventions based upon behavior change models to improve dietary health behaviors in marginalized groups is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]