4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Body image disturbance in 1000 male appearance and performance enhancing drug users

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 44, Issue 13, Pages 841-846

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.01.001

Keywords

Men; Eating disorders; Muscle dysmorphia; Anabolic-androgenic steroids; Body image; Diagnosis

Categories

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [K23 DA024043] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [K23 024034] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Body image disturbance (BID) among men has only recently become a phenomenon of clinical significance with noted heterogeneity in the behavioral consequences of these disturbances. The degree of heterogeneity among appearance and performance enhancing drug (APED) users is unknown and an empirically derived framework for studying BID is necessary. APED users (N = 1000) were recruited via the Internet and they completed a comprehensive online assessment APED use patterns, motivations, consequences, and BID. Data were evaluated using latent trait, latent class, and factor mixture models. Model results were validated using a range of covariates including cycle characteristics, age, APED history, and APED risk. A 1-Factor, 4-Class model provided the best fit to the data with Class 1 scoring the highest on all measures of BID and Class 4 the lowest on all measures. Class 2 differed in their preference for being lean over muscular and Class 3 preferred adding mass and size. Each class was associated with unique risks, APED history, and training identity. Not all APED users suffer from significant BID and there are unique profiles for those with elevated BID. Future research on male BID should account for this structure in order to better define relevant diagnostic categories and evaluate the clinical significance of BID. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available