4.7 Article

Binge eating disorder and night eating syndrome in adults with type 2 diabetes

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages 1287-1293

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2007.150

Keywords

hyperphagia; hemoglobin; prevalence; eating disorders; psychopathology

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK60456, R01 DK060432-03, R01 DK060432, R01 DK60432] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [K02 MH65919, K02 MH065919] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the prevalence of binge eating disorder (BED) and night eating syndrome (NES) among applicants to the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study. Research Methods and Procedures: The Eating Disorders Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and the Night Eating Questionnaire (NEQ) were used to screen patients. Phone interviews were conducted using the EDE for those who reported at least eight episodes of objective binge eating in the past month and using the Night Eating Syndrome History and Interview for those who scored >= 25 on the NEQ. Recruitment at four sites (Birmingham, n = 200; Houston, n = 259: Minneapolis, n = 182; and Philadelphia, n = 204) yielded 845 participants (58% women; mean age = 60.1 +/- 6.7 years: mean BMI = 36.2 +/- 6.3 kg/m(2)). Results: Screening scores were met by 47 (5.6%) applicants on the EDE-Q and 71 (8.4%) on the NEQ. Of the 85% (40/47) who completed the EDE interview, 12 were diagnosed with BED, representing 1.4% of the total sample. Of the 72% (51/71) who completed the Night Eating Syndrome History and Interview, 32 were diagnosed with NES, equal to 3.8% of the total sample. Three participants had both BED and NES. Participants with eating disorders were younger, heavier, and reported more eating pathology than those without eating disorders. Discussion: Among obese adults with type 2 diabetes, NES was reported more frequently than BED, which, in turn, was less common than expected.

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