BMC psychiatry · 2026
Clinical decisions on diagnosis and indication for treatment in stereotypical vs. non-stereotypical cases of eating disorders.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fürtjes Sophia, Luther Anne-Christin, Karg Sarah, Beesdo-Baum Katja, Peschel Stephanie K V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prevalence of non-stereotypical Eating Disorders (EDs; e.g., characterized by normal weight, subjective binge eating) is much higher compared with stereotypical EDs (e.g., characterized by under- or overweight, objective binge eating), but treatment rates are much lower. Despite the similar subjective burden, individuals with non-stereotypical symptom presentation are often misperceived and do not receive adequate treatment.
METHODS: Using case vignettes, we investigate not only whether non-stereotypical cases of ED are judged differently by a sample of N = 308 psychotherapists in training than stereotypical cases. Via a quasi-randomized, controlled design, we also investigate whether a short, educational intervention improves clinical judgement.
RESULTS: Data analyses via hierarchical modelling confirm that non-stereotypical vignettes are perceived as less severe than stereotypical vignettes. They are also less likely to receive an ED-diagnosis, and treatment is less likely to be seen as indicated. The intervention reduced this difference in judgement, leading to a higher perceived problem severity, a higher likelihood of ED-diagnosis, and a higher rating in treatment urgency for non-stereotypical vignettes.
CONCLUSIONS: The results draw attention to the problem of misjudgement of non-stereotypical cases of ED. The promising findings regarding the intervention indicate that education of healthcare professionals might contribute to higher likelihood of treatment for individuals with non-stereotypical symptom presentation.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
METHODS: Using case vignettes, we investigate not only whether non-stereotypical cases of ED are judged differently by a sample of N = 308 psychotherapists in training than stereotypical cases. Via a quasi-randomized, controlled design, we also investigate whether a short, educational intervention improves clinical judgement.
RESULTS: Data analyses via hierarchical modelling confirm that non-stereotypical vignettes are perceived as less severe than stereotypical vignettes. They are also less likely to receive an ED-diagnosis, and treatment is less likely to be seen as indicated. The intervention reduced this difference in judgement, leading to a higher perceived problem severity, a higher likelihood of ED-diagnosis, and a higher rating in treatment urgency for non-stereotypical vignettes.
CONCLUSIONS: The results draw attention to the problem of misjudgement of non-stereotypical cases of ED. The promising findings regarding the intervention indicate that education of healthcare professionals might contribute to higher likelihood of treatment for individuals with non-stereotypical symptom presentation.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.