4.4 Article

Restrictive eating, but not binge eating or purging, predicts suicidal ideation in adolescents and young adults with low-weight eating disorders

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 472-477

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.23210

关键词

anorexia nervosa; eating disorders; low weight; restrictive eating; suicidal ideation

资金

  1. Division of Graduate Education [DGE-1745303]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [F32MH111127, R01MH103402]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study examined the relationship between eating-disorder behaviors-including restrictive eating, binge eating, and purging-and suicidal ideation. We hypothesized that restrictive eating would significantly predict suicidal ideation, beyond the effects of binge eating/purging. Methods Participants were 82 adolescents and young adults with low-weight eating disorders. We conducted a hierarchical logistic regression, with binge eating and purging in Step 1 and restrictive eating in Step 2, to predict suicidal ideation. Results Step 1 was significant (p = .01) and explained 20% variance in suicidal ideation; neither binge eating nor purging significantly predicted suicidal ideation. Adding restrictive eating in Step 2 significantly improved the model (Delta R-2 = .07, p = .009). This final model explained 27% of the variance, and restrictive eating (but not binge eating/purging) significantly predicted suicidal ideation (p = .02). Discussion Restrictive eating is associated with suicidal ideation in youth with low-weight eating disorders, beyond the effects of other eating-disorder behaviors. Although healthcare providers may be more likely to screen for suicidality in patients with binge eating and purging, our findings indicate clinicians should regularly assess suicide and self-injury in patients with restrictive eating. Future research examining how individuals progress from suicidal ideation to suicidal attempts can further enhance our understanding of suicide in eating disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据