Balancing Objective Markers and Subjective Experience in Eating Disorder Diagnoses: Commentary on Dang et al. (2024)

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS International Journal of Eating Disorders Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1002/eat.24268
Kelsey E. Hagan, Kara A. Christensen Pacella
{"title":"Balancing Objective Markers and Subjective Experience in Eating Disorder Diagnoses: Commentary on Dang et al. (2024)","authors":"Kelsey E. Hagan,&nbsp;Kara A. Christensen Pacella","doi":"10.1002/eat.24268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The results of Dang et al.'s recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that individuals diagnosed with other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) and those diagnosed with specified eating disorders (EDs, such as bulimia nervosa) endorse similar, elevated levels of ED-related cognitions (but not behaviors). The <i>DSM</i> has traditionally conceptualized EDs primarily as disturbances in eating behavior, and the diagnostic boundaries for EDs are based on objective markers, such as behavioral frequencies and weight. Although focusing on objective markers for ED diagnoses and severity indices has advantages (e.g., clinical communication, measurement), pitfalls include diagnostic migration and low emphasis on ED cognitions. Dang et al.'s findings provide a basis for rethinking <i>DSM</i>'s conceptualization of EDs as primarily behavioral. This commentary discusses the potential merits and challenges of emphasizing subjective cognitions when assigning ED diagnoses. We explore how objective markers (e.g., behavioral frequency, weight) and subjective experience (e.g., fear of weight gain) may be balanced to improve the clinical utility of ED diagnoses. In all, research that more deeply phenotypes the subjective experiences of people with EDs across contexts, identities, and cultures will enrich our understanding of eating pathology and may inform diagnostic revisions.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":"57 10","pages":"2049-2052"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The results of Dang et al.'s recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that individuals diagnosed with other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) and those diagnosed with specified eating disorders (EDs, such as bulimia nervosa) endorse similar, elevated levels of ED-related cognitions (but not behaviors). The DSM has traditionally conceptualized EDs primarily as disturbances in eating behavior, and the diagnostic boundaries for EDs are based on objective markers, such as behavioral frequencies and weight. Although focusing on objective markers for ED diagnoses and severity indices has advantages (e.g., clinical communication, measurement), pitfalls include diagnostic migration and low emphasis on ED cognitions. Dang et al.'s findings provide a basis for rethinking DSM's conceptualization of EDs as primarily behavioral. This commentary discusses the potential merits and challenges of emphasizing subjective cognitions when assigning ED diagnoses. We explore how objective markers (e.g., behavioral frequency, weight) and subjective experience (e.g., fear of weight gain) may be balanced to improve the clinical utility of ED diagnoses. In all, research that more deeply phenotypes the subjective experiences of people with EDs across contexts, identities, and cultures will enrich our understanding of eating pathology and may inform diagnostic revisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在进食障碍诊断中平衡客观指标与主观体验:对 Dang 等人(2024 年)的评论。
Dang 等人最近的系统综述和荟萃分析结果表明,被诊断为其他特定进食或进食障碍(OSFED)的患者和被诊断为特定进食障碍(ED,如神经性贪食症)的患者具有相似的、与 ED 相关的认知(但非行为)水平的升高。传统上,DSM 将 ED 主要概念化为进食行为紊乱,ED 的诊断界限基于客观指标,如行为频率和体重。虽然将 ED 诊断和严重程度指数的重点放在客观指标上有其优势(如临床交流、测量),但也存在诊断迁移和不重视 ED 认知等缺陷。Dang 等人的发现为重新思考 DSM 将 ED 概念化为主要行为提供了依据。本评论讨论了在进行 ED 诊断时强调主观认知的潜在优点和挑战。我们探讨了如何平衡客观指标(如行为频率、体重)和主观体验(如对体重增加的恐惧),以提高 ED 诊断的临床实用性。总之,对不同环境、身份和文化背景下的 ED 患者的主观体验进行更深入的表型研究,将丰富我们对饮食病理学的理解,并为诊断修订提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.
期刊最新文献
A Pilot Study of "Help for Overcoming Problem Eating" (HOPE): A Single Session Intervention for College Students With Binge-Spectrum Eating Disorders. Issue Information: Editorial Board & Table of Contents Reviewer Acknowledgement for International Journal of Eating Disorders Toward a Specific and Descriptive Definition of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder: A Proposal for Updated Diagnostic Criteria. Adolescent Patient Perspectives on Family-Based Treatment: A Pilot Study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1