4.4 Article

Disparities in eating disorder risk and diagnosis among sexual minority college students: Findings from the national Healthy Minds Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
Volume 53, Issue 9, Pages 1563-1568

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.23304

Keywords

diagnosis; feeding and eating disorders; sexual and gender minorities; sexual orientation; universities

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [T32MH082761]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To examine differences in eating disorder (ED) risk and diagnosis by sexual orientation in a national sample of college students. Method Data from 178 U.S. colleges and universities participating in the Healthy Minds Study between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed (36,691 cisgender men, 81,730 cisgender women; 15.7% self-identifying as sexual minorities). Outcomes were ED risk (>= 2 on the SCOFF) and self-reported lifetime ED diagnosis. Prevalence estimates adjusted for demographics and weight status were computed via logistic regression. Results Higher proportions of questioning (29.1%), bisexual (26.3%), and gay men (30.9%) exhibited elevated risk than heterosexual men (14.3%), and a higher proportion of gay men exhibited elevated risk than bisexual men. Higher proportions of questioning (34.5%) and bisexual women (34.6%) exhibited elevated risk than heterosexual women (27.6%); proportions of lesbian (28.1%) and heterosexual women were similar. Among those with elevated risk, higher proportions of bisexual (5.0%) and gay men (7.1%) and of questioning (14.7%), bisexual (18.1%), and lesbian women (19.6%) had been diagnosed relative to heterosexual men (2.0%) and heterosexual women (10.3%), respectively. Discussion Questioning and bisexual individuals appear to be particularly vulnerable; they may experience elevated ED risk relative to their heterosexual peers yet underdiagnosis relative to their gay or lesbian peers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available