Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Latent profile analysis reveals overlapping ARFID and shape/weight motivations for restriction in eating disorders.
Abber, Sophie R; Becker, Kendra R; Stern, Casey M; Palmer, Lilian P; Joiner, Thomas E; Breithaupt, Lauren; Kambanis, Paraskevi Evelyna; Eddy, Kamryn T; Thomas, Jennifer J; Burton-Murray, Helen.
Afiliação
  • Abber SR; Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
  • Becker KR; Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Stern CM; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Palmer LP; Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Joiner TE; Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Breithaupt L; Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
  • Kambanis PE; Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Eddy KT; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Thomas JJ; Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Burton-Murray H; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Psychol Med ; : 1-11, 2024 May 27.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38801097
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

DSM-5 differentiates avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) from other eating disorders (EDs) by a lack of overvaluation of body weight/shape driving restrictive eating. However, clinical observations and research demonstrate ARFID and shape/weight motivations sometimes co-occur. To inform classification, we (1) derived profiles underlying restriction motivation and examined their validity and (2) described diagnostic characterizations of individuals in each profile to explore whether findings support current diagnostic schemes. We expected, consistent with DSM-5, that profiles would comprise individuals endorsing solely ARFID or restraint (i.e. trying to eat less to control shape/weight) motivations.

METHODS:

We applied latent profile analysis to 202 treatment-seeking individuals (ages 10-79 years [M = 26, s.d. = 14], 76% female) with ARFID or a non-ARFID ED, using the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (Picky, Appetite, and Fear subscales) and the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire Restraint subscale as indicators.

RESULTS:

A 5-profile solution emerged Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (n = 24; 8% [n = 2] with ARFID diagnosis); ARFID-2 (with Picky/Appetite; n = 56; 82% ARFID); ARFID-3 (with Picky/Appetite/Fear; n = 40; 68% ARFID); Restraint (n = 45; 11% ARFID); and Non-Endorsers (n = 37; 2% ARFID). Two profiles comprised individuals endorsing solely ARFID motivations (ARFID-2, ARFID-3) and one comprising solely restraint motivations (Restraint), consistent with DSM-5. However, Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (92% non-ARFID ED diagnoses, comprising 18% of those with non-ARFID ED diagnoses in the full sample) endorsed ARFID and restraint motivations.

CONCLUSIONS:

The heterogeneous profiles identified suggest ARFID and restraint motivations for dietary restriction may overlap somewhat and that individuals with non-ARFID EDs can also endorse high ARFID symptoms. Future research should clarify diagnostic boundaries between ARFID and non-ARFID EDs.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article