Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Screening for eating disorders in adolescents with chronic pain: the Eating Attitudes Test-16-Chronic Pain.
Sim, Leslie; Fahrenkamp, Amy; Geske, Jennifer R; Lebow, Jocelyn; Thilges, Hope; Peterson, Carol B; Matthews, Abigail; Harbeck-Weber, Cynthia.
Affiliation
  • Sim L; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. sim.leslie@mayo.edu.
  • Fahrenkamp A; Pain, Palliative Care, and Integrative Medicine Department, Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  • Geske JR; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Lebow J; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
  • Thilges H; Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Peterson CB; Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.
  • Matthews A; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  • Harbeck-Weber C; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
J Eat Disord ; 12(1): 56, 2024 May 10.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38730431
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Few measures have been validated to screen for eating disorders (ED) in youth with chronic pain. We conducted confirmatory (CFA) of two established factor structures of the Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26) in a sample of youth with chronic pain attending an intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT) program and examined the validity of the best-fitting model in predicting ED diagnoses in this sample.

METHODS:

Participants were 880 adolescents (M age = 16.1, SD = 2.1) consecutively admitted into an IIPT program who completed the EAT-26 upon admission. CFA was conducted and in the case of inadequate fit, EFA was planned to identify alternative models. Factors of the best-fitting model were included in a logistic regression analysis to predict ED diagnoses.

RESULTS:

The TLIs (0.70; 0.90), RMSEAs (0.09; 0.07) and CFIs (0.73; 0.92) suggested poor fit of one model and adequate of the second model. Goodness of fit indices from EFA (TLI0.85, RMSEA0.06) did not outperform the fit of the second CFA. As such, the second model was retained with the exception of one factor. The items loaded onto a 16-item, five factor model Fear of Getting Fat, Social Pressure to Gain Weight, Eating-Related Control, Eating-Related Guilt and Food Preoccupation. Based on chart review, 19.1% of the participants were diagnosed with an eating disorder. Logistic regression analyses indicated the new 16-item measure and Fear of Getting Fat, significantly predicted an ED diagnosis that did not include avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and Social Pressure to Gain Weight significantly predicted a diagnosis of ARFID.

CONCLUSIONS:

An alternative 16-item, 5-factor structure of the EAT-26 should be considered in screening for EDs with youth with chronic pain.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Eat Disord Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Eat Disord Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM