Suppr超能文献

揭示评估饮食强迫症的各种工具:系统检索的批判性文献综述。

Shedding light upon various tools to assess orthorexia nervosa: a critical literature review with a systematic search.

机构信息

Faculty of Science, Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Experimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Eat Weight Disord. 2019 Aug;24(4):671-682. doi: 10.1007/s40519-019-00735-3. Epub 2019 Jun 21.

Abstract

AIM

The aim of this literature review was to identify the tools developed and used to assess orthorexia nervosa (ON).

METHODS

A systematic search was executed in PubMed, Biomed Central, and PsycINFO. The final list included 70 articles that were critically analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of six tools were reported to assess ON: the BOT, the ORTO-15, the EHQ, the DOS, the BOS, and the TOS. The tools were based upon different conceptualizations of ON and of its diagnostic criteria. Although they were different, all the conceptualizations derived from the initial definition of ON provided by Bratman in 1997. None of the methodologies adopted for tool construction considered end users or client perspectives and, when carried out, the validations of the tools were fragmented and often based on specific populations.

CONCLUSION

This study may be a starting point for the construction of a new diagnostic tool for ON. Starting from the methodological weaknesses identified by this review, it was possible to derive some suggestions for future research: (a) developing a modern re-conceptualization of ON, comprehensive of end-user perspectives; (b) adopting qualitative data collection techniques to gain insights into how to diagnose ON; and (c) actively involving diverse stakeholders for constructing a new tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level of Evidence: I, systematic review.

摘要

目的

本文献综述的目的是确定用于评估饮食强迫症(ON)的工具的开发和使用情况。

方法

在 PubMed、Biomed Central 和 PsycINFO 中进行了系统搜索。最终的列表包括 70 篇经过严格分析的文章。

结果

共报告了六种用于评估 ON 的工具:BOT、ORTO-15、EHQ、DOS、BOS 和 TOS。这些工具基于对 ON 及其诊断标准的不同概念化。尽管它们有所不同,但所有的概念化都源自 Bratman 于 1997 年首次提出的 ON 定义。在构建工具时,没有采用任何考虑最终用户或客户视角的方法,而且,当进行工具验证时,验证是零散的,并且常常基于特定人群。

结论

本研究可能是为 ON 构建新诊断工具的起点。从本综述中确定的方法学弱点出发,可以得出一些对未来研究的建议:(a)对 ON 进行现代的重新概念化,包含最终用户的视角;(b)采用定性数据收集技术,深入了解如何诊断 ON;(c)积极邀请不同利益相关者共同构建新工具。

证据水平

证据水平:I,系统综述。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4983/6647444/f9613cb8aee1/40519_2019_735_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验