照顾者-青少年关于九项回避/限制性食物摄入障碍调查的协议。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS International Journal of Eating Disorders Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1002/eat.24384
Julia Carmody, Carly E. Milliren, Tracy K. Richmond, McGreggor Crowley, Olivia Eldredge, Grace B. Jhe, Melissa Freizinger, Elana M. Bern
{"title":"照顾者-青少年关于九项回避/限制性食物摄入障碍调查的协议。","authors":"Julia Carmody,&nbsp;Carly E. Milliren,&nbsp;Tracy K. Richmond,&nbsp;McGreggor Crowley,&nbsp;Olivia Eldredge,&nbsp;Grace B. Jhe,&nbsp;Melissa Freizinger,&nbsp;Elana M. Bern","doi":"10.1002/eat.24384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Patient and caregiver perspectives are critical in the evaluation of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID); however, little is understood about how caregiver and youth perceptions may differ. This study compared caregiver and youth reports among pediatric patients from an outpatient ARFID program.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients (217 individuals with ARFID, aged 8–17) and their caregivers completed the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), a screening tool with parallel youth and caregiver report forms. The NIAS measures ARFID symptomatology across three presentations: sensory-based selectivity (<i>Picky Eating</i>), low appetite/lack of interest in eating (<i>Appetite</i>), and fear of aversive consequences (<i>Fear</i>). Patient and caregiver NIAS scores were compared using <i>t</i> tests, and agreement was assessed via Pearson correlations. We examined the unadjusted bivariate association between patient age and caregiver–patient agreement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Patient mean age was 12.9 (SD = 2.5) and the majority were male (57.1%) and White, non-Hispanic (68.2%) and with private insurance (88.0%). Caregivers reported higher ARFID symptomatology than patients themselves. Using caregiver scores compared to patients, a larger percentage was classified as all three presentations (23.5% vs. 11.5%) or combined selectivity and appetite (46.0% vs. 31.8%). Caregiver scores were higher on average regardless of patient age.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Results support obtaining both patient and caregiver reports whenever possible. Each perspective, as well as areas of discordance, may inform additional evaluation and treatment planning.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":"58 4","pages":"770-777"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Caregiver–Youth Agreement on the Nine-Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Survey\",\"authors\":\"Julia Carmody,&nbsp;Carly E. Milliren,&nbsp;Tracy K. Richmond,&nbsp;McGreggor Crowley,&nbsp;Olivia Eldredge,&nbsp;Grace B. Jhe,&nbsp;Melissa Freizinger,&nbsp;Elana M. Bern\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patient and caregiver perspectives are critical in the evaluation of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID); however, little is understood about how caregiver and youth perceptions may differ. This study compared caregiver and youth reports among pediatric patients from an outpatient ARFID program.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients (217 individuals with ARFID, aged 8–17) and their caregivers completed the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), a screening tool with parallel youth and caregiver report forms. The NIAS measures ARFID symptomatology across three presentations: sensory-based selectivity (<i>Picky Eating</i>), low appetite/lack of interest in eating (<i>Appetite</i>), and fear of aversive consequences (<i>Fear</i>). Patient and caregiver NIAS scores were compared using <i>t</i> tests, and agreement was assessed via Pearson correlations. We examined the unadjusted bivariate association between patient age and caregiver–patient agreement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patient mean age was 12.9 (SD = 2.5) and the majority were male (57.1%) and White, non-Hispanic (68.2%) and with private insurance (88.0%). Caregivers reported higher ARFID symptomatology than patients themselves. Using caregiver scores compared to patients, a larger percentage was classified as all three presentations (23.5% vs. 11.5%) or combined selectivity and appetite (46.0% vs. 31.8%). Caregiver scores were higher on average regardless of patient age.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Results support obtaining both patient and caregiver reports whenever possible. Each perspective, as well as areas of discordance, may inform additional evaluation and treatment planning.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\"58 4\",\"pages\":\"770-777\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-24\",\"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.24384\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24384","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

摘要

背景:患者和护理者的观点在评估回避/限制性食物摄入障碍(ARFID)中至关重要;然而,人们对照顾者和青少年的看法可能有何不同知之甚少。这项研究比较了门诊ARFID项目中儿科患者的护理人员和青少年的报告。方法:217例ARFID患者(8-17岁)及其护理人员完成了九项ARFID筛查(NIAS),这是一种具有平行青年和护理人员报告表的筛查工具。NIAS通过三种表现来测量ARFID症状:基于感觉的选择性(挑食),食欲低下/对饮食缺乏兴趣(食欲),以及对不良后果的恐惧(恐惧)。使用t检验比较患者和护理人员的NIAS评分,并通过Pearson相关性评估一致性。我们检查了患者年龄和护理人员-患者协议之间未调整的双变量关联。结果:患者平均年龄为12.9岁(SD = 2.5),大多数为男性(57.1%),白人,非西班牙裔(68.2%)和私人保险(88.0%)。护理人员报告的ARFID症状比患者本身更高。使用护理者评分与患者进行比较,更大的百分比被分类为所有三种表现(23.5%对11.5%)或选择性和食欲相结合(46.0%对31.8%)。无论患者年龄如何,护理人员的平均得分都较高。讨论:结果支持尽可能获得患者和护理人员的报告。每一种观点,以及不一致的领域,都可以为额外的评估和治疗计划提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Caregiver–Youth Agreement on the Nine-Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Survey

Background

Patient and caregiver perspectives are critical in the evaluation of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID); however, little is understood about how caregiver and youth perceptions may differ. This study compared caregiver and youth reports among pediatric patients from an outpatient ARFID program.

Methods

Patients (217 individuals with ARFID, aged 8–17) and their caregivers completed the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), a screening tool with parallel youth and caregiver report forms. The NIAS measures ARFID symptomatology across three presentations: sensory-based selectivity (Picky Eating), low appetite/lack of interest in eating (Appetite), and fear of aversive consequences (Fear). Patient and caregiver NIAS scores were compared using t tests, and agreement was assessed via Pearson correlations. We examined the unadjusted bivariate association between patient age and caregiver–patient agreement.

Results

Patient mean age was 12.9 (SD = 2.5) and the majority were male (57.1%) and White, non-Hispanic (68.2%) and with private insurance (88.0%). Caregivers reported higher ARFID symptomatology than patients themselves. Using caregiver scores compared to patients, a larger percentage was classified as all three presentations (23.5% vs. 11.5%) or combined selectivity and appetite (46.0% vs. 31.8%). Caregiver scores were higher on average regardless of patient age.

Discussion

Results support obtaining both patient and caregiver reports whenever possible. Each perspective, as well as areas of discordance, may inform additional evaluation and treatment planning.

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
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
Dietetic-Led Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Proof-of-Concept. Identifying Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults Living With Higher Weight: An Updated Systematic Review of Questionnaire Diagnostic Accuracy. Micronutrient Status in Children Suffering From Anorexia Nervosa: A Cohort of 349 Patients in a Referral Center for Eating Disorders. Validation of the ED-15-NL, a Brief Session-by-Session Questionnaire to Measure Changes in Eating Disorder Cognitions and Behaviors. Developing a Clinical Prediction Model for Nonimprovement of Depressive Symptoms at Discharge After Treatment 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
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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