RESUMO
Background: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) describes three primary avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) subtypes including sensory sensitivity, lack of interest in food or eating, and fear of aversive consequences. Studies exploring these subtypes have yielded varying results. We used latent class analysis (LCA) based on the psychopathology of ARFID in a sample of children and adolescents to empirically identify classes. Methods: We carried out a surveillance study of ARFID in collaboration with the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) and the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Surveillance System (CAPSS) in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from 1st of March 2021 to 31st of March 2022. Paediatricians and child and adolescent psychiatrists were contacted monthly to report newly diagnosed cases of ARFID electronically and complete a detailed clinical questionnaire. Cases aged 5-18 years were included. LCA was performed specifying 1-6 classes and likelihood-based tests for model selection. The Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Sample-Size Adjusted BIC were used to determine the most parsimonious model. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ2 tests were used to compare the characteristics of the identified classes. A multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was performed to investigate predicting factors for the latent classes. Findings: We identified 319 children and adolescents with ARFID. LCA revealed four distinct classes which were labelled as Fear subtype, Lack of Interest subtype, Sensory subtype, and Combined subtype. The probability of being classified as these were 7.2% (n = 23), 25.1% (n = 80), 29.5% (n = 94) and 38.2% (n = 122), respectively. Age at diagnosis, sex, weight loss, distress associated with eating, and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis were identified as predictors of class membership. Interpretation: LCA identified four different classes in a sample of children and adolescents with ARFID. The Combined Subtype, a mixed presentation was the most common. The other three classes resembled the subtypes described in the literature. Clinicians should be aware of these different presentations of ARFID as they may benefit from different clinical interventions. Funding: This study was funded by the Former EMS Ltd (charity number 1098725, registered October 9th 2017).
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Uterine adenomyosis is a benign gynaecological disease that causes physical and psychological problems, impacting on relationships. It is poorly understood and consequently may be diagnosed late. This protocol describes the process of conducting a systematic scoping review to retrieve and describe literature examining the daily experience and impact of living with uterine adenomyosis. It will explore the journey to diagnosis (and perceptions of what this process is like); identify the main concepts currently used in the literature and highlight gaps in knowledge for future research in relevant populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, the population-concept-context approach is used to form clear review questions. A three-phase search strategy will locate published and unpublished evidence from multiple sources. All articles reporting on the personal experiences of women diagnosed with uterine adenomyosis will be considered. Findings from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method study designs from all settings will be included, not limited by geography but restricted to English. Documents will be screened by the primary researcher, supported by university supervisors. Search outputs will be presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 flow diagram. No formal quality appraisal will be conducted. Review findings will be descriptively collated and reported consistent with the Scoping Review Extension of the PRISMA checklist. Patient and public involvement engagement reflected a positive response for the project that this protocol supports. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As primary data will not be collected, formal ethical approval is not required. Prepared as part of a professional doctorate thesis, the findings of this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, support groups and social media networks.