成瘾和暴饮暴食病理学的整合维持理论:情感理论和基于奖励的理论综述

IF 12.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Emily K. Burr , Lauren M. Schaefer , Robert D. Dvorak , Stephen A. Wonderlich
{"title":"成瘾和暴饮暴食病理学的整合维持理论:情感理论和基于奖励的理论综述","authors":"Emily K. Burr ,&nbsp;Lauren M. Schaefer ,&nbsp;Robert D. Dvorak ,&nbsp;Stephen A. Wonderlich","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Binge eating disorder (BED) is characterized by recurrent binge eating episodes. Many factors have been analyzed in the maintenance of binge eating disorder, but current treatments still fall short of optimal success rates, with approximately half of individuals with BED relapsing following intervention. Perhaps partially due to the many shared vulnerabilities and high rates of comorbidity, interventions of BED have increasingly incorporated strategies utilized in substance use disorder treatment and indeed, there are many overlapping components in prevailing theories of BED and addiction. Despite interventions increasingly sharing mechanisms, there is lacking an in-depth review of conceptualization overlaps and differences. Although there are many reviews of models for BED and substance use disorders, none to-date compare and contrast the models of the most analyzed maintenance factors across both disorders: affect-based models and reward-based models. This narrative review, incorporating key and currently influential models that have been included in reviews with empirical support from the last 15 years, explores these models in-depth and provides critical analysis of where they differ and overlap to inform future interventions. Affect-based models largely evolved separably, however, most contemporary reward-based models of BED borrow concepts historically explored in addiction. Clinical implications, including refinement of treatment for individuals with BED or BED and concurrent problematic substance use are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 102627"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating maintaining theories for addiction and binge-eating pathology: A review of affective and reward-based theories\",\"authors\":\"Emily K. Burr ,&nbsp;Lauren M. Schaefer ,&nbsp;Robert D. Dvorak ,&nbsp;Stephen A. Wonderlich\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102627\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Binge eating disorder (BED) is characterized by recurrent binge eating episodes. Many factors have been analyzed in the maintenance of binge eating disorder, but current treatments still fall short of optimal success rates, with approximately half of individuals with BED relapsing following intervention. Perhaps partially due to the many shared vulnerabilities and high rates of comorbidity, interventions of BED have increasingly incorporated strategies utilized in substance use disorder treatment and indeed, there are many overlapping components in prevailing theories of BED and addiction. Despite interventions increasingly sharing mechanisms, there is lacking an in-depth review of conceptualization overlaps and differences. Although there are many reviews of models for BED and substance use disorders, none to-date compare and contrast the models of the most analyzed maintenance factors across both disorders: affect-based models and reward-based models. This narrative review, incorporating key and currently influential models that have been included in reviews with empirical support from the last 15 years, explores these models in-depth and provides critical analysis of where they differ and overlap to inform future interventions. Affect-based models largely evolved separably, however, most contemporary reward-based models of BED borrow concepts historically explored in addiction. Clinical implications, including refinement of treatment for individuals with BED or BED and concurrent problematic substance use are discussed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"120 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102627\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000947\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000947","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

暴食症(BED)以反复暴食为特征。在暴饮暴食症的维持过程中,已经分析了许多因素,但目前的治疗方法仍然没有达到最佳的成功率,大约一半的暴饮暴食症患者在干预后复发。也许部分原因是由于许多共同的弱点和高比例的合并症,BED的干预措施越来越多地纳入了物质使用障碍治疗中使用的策略,事实上,在流行的BED和成瘾理论中有许多重叠的成分。尽管干预措施越来越多地共享机制,但缺乏对概念化重叠和差异的深入审查。虽然有许多关于BED和物质使用障碍模型的综述,但迄今为止还没有对两种疾病中分析最多的维持因素模型进行比较和对比:基于影响的模型和基于奖励的模型。本叙述性审查纳入了在过去15年的经验支持下纳入审查的关键和当前有影响力的模型,深入探讨了这些模型,并对它们的不同和重叠之处进行了批判性分析,以便为未来的干预提供信息。基于情感的模型在很大程度上是独立发展的,然而,大多数当代基于奖励的BED模型借用了成瘾史上探索过的概念。临床意义,包括改进治疗的个人与床或床和并发问题物质使用进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Integrating maintaining theories for addiction and binge-eating pathology: A review of affective and reward-based theories
Binge eating disorder (BED) is characterized by recurrent binge eating episodes. Many factors have been analyzed in the maintenance of binge eating disorder, but current treatments still fall short of optimal success rates, with approximately half of individuals with BED relapsing following intervention. Perhaps partially due to the many shared vulnerabilities and high rates of comorbidity, interventions of BED have increasingly incorporated strategies utilized in substance use disorder treatment and indeed, there are many overlapping components in prevailing theories of BED and addiction. Despite interventions increasingly sharing mechanisms, there is lacking an in-depth review of conceptualization overlaps and differences. Although there are many reviews of models for BED and substance use disorders, none to-date compare and contrast the models of the most analyzed maintenance factors across both disorders: affect-based models and reward-based models. This narrative review, incorporating key and currently influential models that have been included in reviews with empirical support from the last 15 years, explores these models in-depth and provides critical analysis of where they differ and overlap to inform future interventions. Affect-based models largely evolved separably, however, most contemporary reward-based models of BED borrow concepts historically explored in addiction. Clinical implications, including refinement of treatment for individuals with BED or BED and concurrent problematic substance use are discussed.
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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
×
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