4.4 Article

Orthorexia Nervosa, a challenging evaluation: analysis of a sample of customers from organic food stores

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 478-486

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1771386

关键词

Eating disorder; food; organic; healthy diet; diet; vegetarian

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that OSCs were more likely to test positive for Orthorexia Nervosa symptoms on the ORTO-15 compared to non-OSCs, with a prevalence of 69.4% for OSCs and 23.1% for non-OSCs. OSCs also reported higher EHQ scores. Potential predictors mainly included being an OSC or following food restrictions.
An excessive control of quality of food can turn into Orthorexia Nervosa (ON). The organic store customers (OSCs) can be apopulation at risk for ON. The aims of this study were to assess ON symptoms prevalence among them, comparing them with non-OSCs and investigate potential predictors of ON. Across-sectional survey was carried among 121 OSCs and 119 non-OSCs. The questionnaire assessed socio-demographic characteristics and investigated current dietary habits. The main outcome measures used were ORTO-15 and Eating Habits Questionnaire (EHQ). Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences between groups (OSCs and non-OSCs). Logistic and linear regressions were performed to evaluate potential predictors of ON symptoms and to compare questionnaires. As main results, OSCs had ahigher probability to result positive at ORTO-15 compared to non-OSCs. The prevalence among OSCs was 69.4% and 23.1% (using ORTO-15 with 40 and 35 cut-offs). Higher EHQ scores were reported among OSCs (p < 0.001). Potential predictors were mainly being an OSC or following food restrictions. Predictors varied using different cut-offsof ORTO-15 and EHQ. These results suggest the association between OSCs and ON symptoms. Some differences were found between ORTO-15 and EHQ. Further studies need to be performed to improve diagnostic tools.

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