4.7 Review

Childhood maltreatment and eating disorder pathology: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 1402-1416

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291716003561

关键词

Anorexia; bulimia; childhood abuse; eating disorders; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Leiden University, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Meta-analyses have established a high prevalence of childhood maltreatment (CM) in patients with eating disorders (EDs) relative to the general population. Whether the prevalence of CM in EDs is also high relative to that in other mental disorders has not yet been established through meta-analyses nor to what extent CM affects defining features of EDs, such as number of binge/purge episodes or age at onset. Our aim is to provide meta-analyses on the associations between exposure to CM (i.e. emotional, physical and sexual abuse) on the occurrence of all types of EDs and its defining features. Method. Systematic review and meta-analyses. Databases were searched until 4 June 2016. Results. CM prevalence was high in each type of ED (total N = 13 059, prevalence rates 21-59%) relative to healthy (N = 15 092, prevalence rates 1-35%) and psychiatric (N = 7736, prevalence rates 5-46%) control groups. ED patients reporting CM were more likely to be diagnosed with a co-morbid psychiatric disorder [odds ratios (ORs) range 1.41-2.46, p < 0.05] and to be suicidal (OR 2.07, p < 0.001) relative to ED subjects who were not exposed to CM. ED subjects exposed to CM also reported an earlier age at ED onset [effect size (Hedges' g) = -0.32, p < 0.05], to suffer a more severe form of the illness (g = 0.29, p < 0.05), and to binge-purge (g = 0.31, p < 0.001) more often compared to ED patients who did not report any CM. Conclusion. CM, regardless of type, is associated with the presence of all types of ED and with severity parameters that characterize these illnesses in a dose dependent manner.

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

4.7
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