4.4 Review

Stress and eating behaviours in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 280-304

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2021.1923406

关键词

Stress; eating behaviour; meta-analysis; eating styles; obesity; restrained eating

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The meta-analysis found that stress has a small positive effect on overall food intake, with increased consumption of unhealthy foods and decreased consumption of healthy foods. Only one significant moderator (restraint on stress-unhealthy eating) was identified.
Stress leads to detrimental health outcomes through direct biological and indirect behavioural changes. Stress can lead to disruption to normal eating behaviours, although the strength of these associations is unknown. This is the first meta-analysis to determine the strength of the stress-eating relationship in healthy adults and to explore the impact of potential moderators. Studies included had a clearly defined measure of stress (i.e., any noxious event or episode in one's environment with the exclusion of emotional distress) that was linked to non-disordered eating. Key terms were searched in Medline, PsycInfo and Ovid databases (23,104 studies identified). 54 studies (combined N = 119,820) were retained in the meta-analysis. A small, positive effect size was found for the stress-overall food intake relationship (Hedges' g = 0.114). Stress was associated with increased consumption of unhealthy foods (Hedges' g = 0.116) but decreased consumption of healthy foods (Hedges' g = -0.111). Only one significant moderator (restraint on stress-unhealthy eating) was identified. This meta-analysis identified the magnitude of the effect of stress on eating behaviour outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed that was not explained by the moderators examined. Further research on moderators of the stress-eating relationship is required and should distinguish effects for healthy versus unhealthy eating.

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