4.7 Review

Disgust and Self-Disgust in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14091728

Keywords

disgust; self-disgust; eating disorders

Funding

  1. Turkish Ministry of National Education
  2. Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/N013700/1]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
  4. University of Minnesota
  5. Saudi Government Educational Sponsorship
  6. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) for Mental Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of disgust and self-disgust in people with eating disorders, finding that these emotions have potential clinical relevance in the treatment of eating disorders.
Disgust and self-disgust are aversive emotions which are often encountered in people with eating disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of disgust and self-disgust in people with eating disorders using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic review of the literature revealed 52 original research papers. There was substantial heterogeneity regarding the research question and outcomes. However, we found 5 articles on disgust elicited by food images, 10 studies on generic disgust sensitivity, and 4 studies on self-disgust, and we proceeded to a meta-analytic approach on these studies. We found that women with eating disorders have significantly higher momentary disgust feelings in response to food images (1.32; 95% CI 1.05, 1.59), higher generic disgust sensitivity (0.49; 95% CI 0.24, 0.71), and higher self-disgust (1.90; 95% CI 1.51, 2.29) compared with healthy controls. These findings indicate the potential clinical relevance of disgust and self-disgust in the treatment of eating disorders.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available