DSM-5 Eating Disorders and Other Specified Eating and Feeding Disorders: Is There a Meaningful Differentiation?
DSM-5 Eating Disorders and Other Specified Eating and Feeding Disorders: Is There a Meaningful Differentiation?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/eat.22257
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Wade, Tracey D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fairweather-Schmidt, A. Kate;Wade, Tracey D.
目的：在DSM-5饮食障碍诊断标准中，出现了两大类主要人群，即阈值性饮食障碍（TED；神经性厌食症、神经性贪食症和暴食症）和其他特定进食障碍（OSFED）。除了计算这两组的患病率外，我们还检查了他们在损伤和风险因素方面可以区分的程度。方法：对年龄在12.70 ~ 19.84岁之间的青春期女性双胞胎（N = 699）进行三次进食障碍检查。评估还包括与损害和风险相关的自我报告措施。结果：青少年人群中DSM-5 ED患病率为10.4%；TED为5.4% OSFED为5%损伤水平在任何波上都不能区分TED组和OSFED组。潜在危险因素检查显示TED和OSFED组具有共同的遗传基础；然而，在很大程度上，不重叠的独特环境影响促成了这两个群体。特定的危险因素通常区分非ED和TED组，但不区分OSFED组。讨论：研究结果表明，TED和OSFED组不能通过患病率或损伤或遗传风险因素进行区分。预计OSFED对青少年的临床应用有限。未来的研究应检查这两组的临床病例是否有意义的差异，并保持对两组的研究重点。进一步检查可能减轻两组之间症状程度的特定环境风险因素，可能为预防工作提供有用的信息。(C) 2014 Wiley期刊公司
Objective: In the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for eating disorders, two main groups appear, threshold eating disorders (TED; anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder), and other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED). In addition to calculating prevalence of these two groups, we examined the degree to which they could be differentiated in terms of impairment and risk factors.Method: Adolescent female twins (N = 699) were interviewed with the Eating Disorder Examination on three occasions spanning 12.70-19.84 years of age. Assessments also included self-report measures related to impairment and risk.Results: Prevalence of DSM-5 ED in this adolescent population was 10.4%; 5.4% for TED and 5% for OSFED. Impairment levels did not distinguish TED and OSFED groups at any wave. Examination of latent risk factors showed TED and OSFED groups to share a common genetic basis; however, largely nonoverlapping unique environmental influences contributed to the two groups. Specific risk factors commonly differentiated the no ED and TED groups, but not OSFED.Discussion: The findings suggest that TED and OSFED groups cannot be discriminated by prevalence or impairment or genetic risk factors. It is anticipated that OSFED will possess limited clinical utility for adolescents. Future research should examine clinical cases of these two groups in terms of meaningful differences, and a research focus should be maintained on both groups. Further examination of specific environmental risk factors that may attenuate the level of symptoms between the two groups may provide useful information for prevention efforts. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.