4.0 Article

A consensus document on definition and diagnostic criteria for orthorexia nervosa

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40519-022-01512-5

Keywords

Orthorexia nervosa (ON); Feeding and eating disorders (F&ED); Anorexia nervosa (AN); Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); Avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID); Eating disorder

Categories

Funding

  1. Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to categorize the pathology of orthorexia nervosa (ON) among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider its inclusion in the DSM. It is the first time that a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts.
Purpose Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (omicron rho theta omicron sigma, right and omicron rho epsilon xi iota sigma, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with correct eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included. Methods 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A-Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B-Consequences; C-Onset; D-Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants. Results 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON. Conclusions This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available