Background/Objectives: Parental weight stigma and bias can shape how parents talk about weight and health with their children, yet their interplay in Romania is unexplored. We examined how parents’ experienced stigma, internalized bias, and explicit antifat attitudes relate to weight- and health-focused conversations with 5–17-year-olds, and whether these links vary by child weight status. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey of 414 Romanian parents, we assessed stigma (teasing/unfair treatment), internalized bias (WBIS-M), antifat attitudes (AFA, UMBFAT), and frequency of health (healthy eating/PA) versus weight-focused talks and comments. BMI-derived child weight status was classified via WHO percentiles. Multivariate regressions and mediation analyses tested predictors and indirect effects. Results: Nearly 80% of parents discussed weight at least sometimes; higher child BMI percentile and parental internalized bias independently predicted more weight conversations (β = 0.44 and β = 0.25, both p < 0.001). Internalized bias mediated the effect of experienced stigma on weight talk (indirect effect = 0.105, 95% CI [0.047, 0.172]). Explicit antifat attitudes drove comments about others’ weight (β = 0.17, p = 0.002). Health-focused talks were unrelated to stigma or bias but were more frequent among parents with higher education, better self-rated health, and lower BMI. Conclusions: Parents’ internalized weight bias—shaped by stigma—fuels weight-focused conversations, especially when children have higher BMI, while antifat attitudes underlie negative comments about others. Interventions should reduce parental internalized bias and train supportive, health-centered communication to curb weight stigma transmission.

Microalgae‐derived iron preparations are entering clinical discourse as a potentially better‐tolerated alternative to conventional ferrous salt supplementation, which fails a substantial proportion of the approximately 571 million women globally affected by iron‐deficiency anemia (IDA) due to gastrointestinal adverse effects. Yet translational readiness requires more than biological efficacy data it requires knowing whether patients would actually accept such preparations under realistic informational conditions. No study has addressed this question in a defined IDA population. We conducted a cross‐sectional online survey among 71 Romanian adults with physician‐diagnosed IDA and prior oral iron experience, measuring informed acceptance assessed only after participants received standardized clinical information, including current evidence limitations, using a validated 5‐item composite score (ACC_score; α = 0.801). Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) attitudes, motivators, adverse‐effect burden, and physician trust were examined as predictors via Spearman correlations and ordinary least squares regression. Acceptance was high overall (ACC_score = 20.68, SD = 3.25) though concentrated near the scale ceiling (IQR = 19–23), limiting variability in the outcome and likely attenuating observed associations. The multivariate model explained 63.8% of variance ( p < 0.001); self‐efficacy showed the strongest standardized association in the primary OLS model ( β = 0.384), followed by perceived barriers ( β = −0.275), CAM attitudes ( β = 0.248), and perceived susceptibility ( β = 0.229) though self‐efficacy did not reach statistical significance in a binary logistic sensitivity analysis (OR = 4.01, p = 0.058), most likely reflecting information loss from outcome dichotomization. Critically, among individual barrier items, only the lack of long‐term evidence reached statistical significance a specific, addressable target for patient communication. Notably, safety concerns about current iron formulations were positively, not negatively, associated with acceptance, consistent with an activated patient profile in which dissatisfaction with tolerability motivates alternative‐seeking. The sample was highly selected (95.8% female and 91.5% university educated), and the findings should be interpreted as hypothesis‐generating and require confirmation in larger, clinically verified, and more representative IDA populations.

Background/Objectives: No study has evaluated a gamified nutrition-education platform for adolescents in Eastern Europe. This pilot study described short-term changes in nutrition literacy, dietary engagement and reported food habits after one session with AHOPE, an automated gamified platform, among Romanian adolescents. Methods: In a single-arm pre–post study, 332 adolescents aged 10–19 years began one session and 155 (46.7%) completed it, answering three scales, including an adapted forced-choice Adolescent Food Habits Checklist, immediately before and after. Paired tests used Benjamini–Hochberg correction; moderation and predictor analyses were exploratory. Results: All six outcome scores were higher after the session (all p_BH < 0.001; dz 0.42–0.73, largest for nutrition literacy). Of 23 food-habit items, 17 shifted toward the healthier response, with the largest shifts for the foods taught in the modules. Interaction tests gave no evidence that change differed by sex, age band or family affluence (all p_BH ≥ 0.90), although power was limited (low-affluence group, n = 18). Conclusions: Among completers, who were more affluent than non-completers, self-reported nutrition literacy, dietary engagement and food-habit responses were higher immediately after one session. These changes may reflect short-term intentions; the design cannot establish causation, persistence or behavioural change, which require a controlled trial with delayed follow-up.