Appetite · 2015
A new social-family model for eating disorders: A European multicentre project using a case-control design.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Krug Isabel, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz Matthew, Anderluh Marija, Bellodi Laura, Bagnoli Silvia, Collier David, Fernandez-Aranda Fernando, Karwautz Andreas, Mitchell Sarah, Nacmias Benedetta, Ricca Valdo, Sorbi Sandro, Tchanuria Kate, Wagner Gudrun, Treasure Janet, Micali Nadia
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine a new socio-family risk model of Eating Disorders (EDs) using path-analyses.
METHOD: The sample comprised 1264 (ED patients = 653; Healthy Controls = 611) participants, recruited into a multicentre European project. Socio-family factors assessed included: perceived maternal and parental parenting styles, family, peer and media influences, and body dissatisfaction. Two types of path-analyses were run to assess the socio-family model: 1.) a multinomial logistic path-model including ED sub-types [Anorexia Nervosa-Restrictive (AN-R), AN-Binge-Purging (AN-BP), Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and EDNOS)] as the key polychotomous categorical outcome and 2.) a path-model assessing whether the socio-family model differed across ED sub-types and healthy controls using body dissatisfaction as the outcome variable.
RESULTS: The first path-analyses suggested that family and media (but not peers) were directly and indirectly associated (through body dissatisfaction) with all ED sub-types. There was a weak effect of perceived parenting directly on ED sub-types and indirectly through family influences and body dissatisfaction. For the second path-analyses, the socio-family model varied substantially across ED sub-types. Family and media influences were related to body dissatisfaction in the EDNOS and control sample, whereas perceived abusive parenting was related to AN-BP and BN.
DISCUSSION: This is the first study providing support for this new socio-family model, which differed across ED sub-types. This suggests that prevention and early intervention might need to be tailored to diagnosis-specific ED profiles.
METHOD: The sample comprised 1264 (ED patients = 653; Healthy Controls = 611) participants, recruited into a multicentre European project. Socio-family factors assessed included: perceived maternal and parental parenting styles, family, peer and media influences, and body dissatisfaction. Two types of path-analyses were run to assess the socio-family model: 1.) a multinomial logistic path-model including ED sub-types [Anorexia Nervosa-Restrictive (AN-R), AN-Binge-Purging (AN-BP), Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and EDNOS)] as the key polychotomous categorical outcome and 2.) a path-model assessing whether the socio-family model differed across ED sub-types and healthy controls using body dissatisfaction as the outcome variable.
RESULTS: The first path-analyses suggested that family and media (but not peers) were directly and indirectly associated (through body dissatisfaction) with all ED sub-types. There was a weak effect of perceived parenting directly on ED sub-types and indirectly through family influences and body dissatisfaction. For the second path-analyses, the socio-family model varied substantially across ED sub-types. Family and media influences were related to body dissatisfaction in the EDNOS and control sample, whereas perceived abusive parenting was related to AN-BP and BN.
DISCUSSION: This is the first study providing support for this new socio-family model, which differed across ED sub-types. This suggests that prevention and early intervention might need to be tailored to diagnosis-specific ED profiles.