Jessica Parker
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Jessica Parker has a total of 3 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Karina Allen
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
1 shared publication - Kate Tchanturia
King’s College London
1 shared publication - Lauren Makin
PO59, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 12 December 2025
- Published by Wiley in European Eating Disorders Review
- Vol. 34 (3) , 676-721
Teacher‐Led Universal Eating Disorder Prevention Programmes in Schools: A Scoping Review
Objective: This scoping review seeks to evaluate the efficacy of teacher‐led interventions in mitigating risk factors related to eating disorders, considering the necessity for universal prevention programmes that can be effectively administered by educators. Methods: A literature search was conducted via ERIC, PubMed, and Scopus, following PRISMA guidelines. This search focused on peer‐reviewed studies that evaluated teacher‐led programmes among adolescents aged 11–16. Data was extracted on study design, sample characteristics, intervention content, and outcomes. Quality appraisal was conducted using CASP and CONSORT to enable evaluation. Results were synthesised and guided by PRISMA. Results: From 16 studies, this review identified that teacher‐led programmes could effectively reduce risk factors, including thin‐ideal internalisation and body dissatisfaction. However, effectiveness requires an emphasis on teachers following program manuals, as deviations from the program often weaken outcomes, underscoring the need for comprehensive teacher training and support. The review also highlighted gender‐specific challenges, with some programmes being less effective for boys. Conclusions: Teacher‐led interventions are important for scalable and sustainable eating disorder prevention in schools; however, success depends on rigorous adherence to intervention protocols and ongoing support for educators. Future research should focus on long‐term efficacy, gender‐specific adaptations, and the comparative cost‐effectiveness of teacher‐led versus clinician‐led programmes.
- 12 December 2025
- Published by Wiley in European Eating Disorders Review
- Vol. 34 (3) , 676-721
Open AccessTeacher‐Led Universal Eating Disorder Prevention Programmes in Schools: A Scoping Review
Objective: This scoping review seeks to evaluate the efficacy of teacher‐led interventions in mitigating risk factors related to eating disorders, considering the necessity for universal prevention programmes that can be effectively administered by educators. Methods: A literature search was conducted via ERIC, PubMed, and Scopus, following PRISMA guidelines. This search focused on peer‐reviewed studies that evaluated teacher‐led programmes among adolescents aged 11–16. Data was extracted on study design, sample characteristics, intervention content, and outcomes. Quality appraisal was conducted using CASP and CONSORT to enable evaluation. Results were synthesised and guided by PRISMA. Results: From 16 studies, this review identified that teacher‐led programmes could effectively reduce risk factors, including thin‐ideal internalisation and body dissatisfaction. However, effectiveness requires an emphasis on teachers following program manuals, as deviations from the program often weaken outcomes, underscoring the need for comprehensive teacher training and support. The review also highlighted gender‐specific challenges, with some programmes being less effective for boys. Conclusions: Teacher‐led interventions are important for scalable and sustainable eating disorder prevention in schools; however, success depends on rigorous adherence to intervention protocols and ongoing support for educators. Future research should focus on long‐term efficacy, gender‐specific adaptations, and the comparative cost‐effectiveness of teacher‐led versus clinician‐led programmes.