Objective: To identify how Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities are defined in epidemiological research in Australia and provide a definition of CALD status that aids the consistency and interpretability of epidemiological studies. Methods: Peer-reviewed literature from January 2015 to May 2020 was searched via four databases (Ovid Medline combined with PubMed, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL) to identify quantitative studies of CALD people in Australia. Results: A total of 108 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Country of birth was the most commonly used CALD definition (n = 33, 30.6%), with combinations of two or more components also frequently used (n = 31, 28.7%). No studies used all the components suggested as core to defining CALD status. including country of birth, languages other than English spoken at home, English proficiency, and indigenous status. Conclusions: There was considerable inconsistency in how CALD status was defined. The review suggests that CALD status would best be defined as people born in non-English speaking countries, and/or who do not speak English at home. Additionally, indigenous peoples should be considered separately. This recommended definition will support the better identification of potential health disparity and needs in CALD and indigenous communities.

Prejudice against those who are perceived as ‘fat’ or obese (anti-fat prejudice) is rife, increasing, and associated with negative outcomes for those targeted for such treatment. The present review sought to identify and describe published research on interventions to reduce anti-fat prejudice. A systematic search of relevant databases (e.g. PsychInfo, PubMed, Scopus) found 16 published studies that had sought to reduce anti-fat prejudice. Most notable was the lack of research on interventions for reducing anti-fat prejudice. Methodological problems that limit the interpretability of results were identified in the majority of studies found. Interventions employing more rigorous experimental designs provided at best mixed evidence for effectiveness. Although several studies reported changes in beliefs and knowledge about the causes of obesity, reductions in anti-fat prejudice did not typically accompany these changes. Anti-fat prejudice interventions adopting social norm- and social consensusbased approaches appear encouraging but are scarce. The lack of prejudice reduction following most interventions suggests that psychological mechanisms other than, or additional to, those being manipulated may underpin anti-fat prejudice. New directions for researching anti-fat prejudice are suggested. Given the strength of antipathy displayed toward those who are perceived as ‘fat’ or obese, research in this area is urgently required.