在限制性饮食障碍中对回避/限制性饮食动机的认可:一项特质和国家层面的检查。

IF 3.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Vittoria Trolio, Ege Biçaker, Alexia E Miller, Sarah E Racine
{"title":"在限制性饮食障碍中对回避/限制性饮食动机的认可:一项特质和国家层面的检查。","authors":"Vittoria Trolio, Ege Biçaker, Alexia E Miller, Sarah E Racine","doi":"10.1002/erv.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) has emphasised differences between these disorders, but similarities maintaining dietary restriction may be overlooked. ARFID-related eating disturbances may also occur and facilitate egosyntonic restriction in AN.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS; N = 141) and ecological momentary assessment (N = 76), we examined endorsement of ARFID-related and traditional eating disorder (ED) reasons for restrictive eating in women with ARFID, AN-restrictive subtype (AN-R), AN binge eating/purging subtype (AN-BP), and controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinical groups scored higher on NIAS subscales than controls. ARFID participants scored higher on NIAS-Picky than AN groups, and higher on NIAS-Fears and NIAS-Appetite than AN-BP, while AN-R did not differ from either. For skipped meals, ARFID and AN-R did not differ on ratings of avoidant/restrictive motivations, while AN-BP did not differ from either on fears of aversive consequences. For restriction at meal/snack, ARFID did not differ from AN-R on endorsement of picky eating nor AN-BP on lack of interest but endorsed stronger fears of aversive consequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While sensory sensitivity/picky eating appears unique to primarily-restrictive EDs, lack of interest was common across clinical groups. Results highlight differences and potential transdiagnostic treatment targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":48117,"journal":{"name":"European Eating Disorders Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endorsement of Avoidant/Restrictive Eating Motivations Across Restrictive Eating Disorders: A Trait- and State-Level Examination.\",\"authors\":\"Vittoria Trolio, Ege Biçaker, Alexia E Miller, Sarah E Racine\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/erv.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) has emphasised differences between these disorders, but similarities maintaining dietary restriction may be overlooked. ARFID-related eating disturbances may also occur and facilitate egosyntonic restriction in AN.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS; N = 141) and ecological momentary assessment (N = 76), we examined endorsement of ARFID-related and traditional eating disorder (ED) reasons for restrictive eating in women with ARFID, AN-restrictive subtype (AN-R), AN binge eating/purging subtype (AN-BP), and controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinical groups scored higher on NIAS subscales than controls. ARFID participants scored higher on NIAS-Picky than AN groups, and higher on NIAS-Fears and NIAS-Appetite than AN-BP, while AN-R did not differ from either. For skipped meals, ARFID and AN-R did not differ on ratings of avoidant/restrictive motivations, while AN-BP did not differ from either on fears of aversive consequences. For restriction at meal/snack, ARFID did not differ from AN-R on endorsement of picky eating nor AN-BP on lack of interest but endorsed stronger fears of aversive consequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While sensory sensitivity/picky eating appears unique to primarily-restrictive EDs, lack of interest was common across clinical groups. Results highlight differences and potential transdiagnostic treatment targets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48117,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Eating Disorders Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Eating Disorders Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.70016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Eating Disorders Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.70016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:回避/限制性食物摄入障碍(ARFID)和神经性厌食症(AN)的研究强调了这两种疾病之间的差异,但维持饮食限制的相似性可能被忽视。arfid相关的进食障碍也可能发生,并促进AN的自我同步限制。方法:采用九项ARFID筛选(NIAS);N = 141)和生态瞬时评估(N = 76),我们检查了ARFID女性限制性饮食的ARFID相关和传统饮食障碍(ED)原因的认可,限制性亚型(AN- r),暴食/清除亚型(AN- bp)和对照组。结果:临床组在NIAS量表上得分高于对照组。ARFID参与者在nias -挑剔上的得分高于AN组,在nias -恐惧和nias -食欲上的得分高于AN- bp,而AN- r与两者都没有差异。对于不吃饭,ARFID和AN-R在回避/限制动机的评分上没有差异,而AN-BP在对厌恶后果的恐惧上也没有差异。对于正餐/零食的限制,ARFID与AN-R在支持挑食方面没有区别,而AN-BP在缺乏兴趣方面也没有区别,但支持更强烈的厌恶后果恐惧。结论:虽然感觉敏感/挑食似乎是主要限制性急诊科独有的,但缺乏兴趣在临床组中很常见。结果强调了差异和潜在的跨诊断治疗目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endorsement of Avoidant/Restrictive Eating Motivations Across Restrictive Eating Disorders: A Trait- and State-Level Examination.

Objective: Research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) has emphasised differences between these disorders, but similarities maintaining dietary restriction may be overlooked. ARFID-related eating disturbances may also occur and facilitate egosyntonic restriction in AN.

Method: Using the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS; N = 141) and ecological momentary assessment (N = 76), we examined endorsement of ARFID-related and traditional eating disorder (ED) reasons for restrictive eating in women with ARFID, AN-restrictive subtype (AN-R), AN binge eating/purging subtype (AN-BP), and controls.

Results: Clinical groups scored higher on NIAS subscales than controls. ARFID participants scored higher on NIAS-Picky than AN groups, and higher on NIAS-Fears and NIAS-Appetite than AN-BP, while AN-R did not differ from either. For skipped meals, ARFID and AN-R did not differ on ratings of avoidant/restrictive motivations, while AN-BP did not differ from either on fears of aversive consequences. For restriction at meal/snack, ARFID did not differ from AN-R on endorsement of picky eating nor AN-BP on lack of interest but endorsed stronger fears of aversive consequences.

Conclusions: While sensory sensitivity/picky eating appears unique to primarily-restrictive EDs, lack of interest was common across clinical groups. Results highlight differences and potential transdiagnostic treatment targets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Eating Disorders Review
European Eating Disorders Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: European Eating Disorders Review publishes authoritative and accessible articles, from all over the world, which review or report original research that has implications for the treatment and care of people with eating disorders, and articles which report innovations and experience in the clinical management of eating disorders. The journal focuses on implications for best practice in diagnosis and treatment. The journal also provides a forum for discussion of the causes and prevention of eating disorders, and related health policy. The aims of the journal are to offer a channel of communication between researchers, practitioners, administrators and policymakers who need to report and understand developments in the field of eating disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信