Suppr超能文献

节食者的体重指数、食物渴望和失抑制进食是否会增加?荷兰饮食行为问卷中节食量表和节制饮食量表的比较。

Do restrained eaters show increased BMI, food craving and disinhibited eating? A comparison of the Restraint Scale and the Restrained Eating scale of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire.

作者信息

Adams Rachel C, Chambers Christopher D, Lawrence Natalia S

机构信息

CUBRIC, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Maindy Road, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK.

School of Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.

出版信息

R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Jun 12;6(6):190174. doi: 10.1098/rsos.190174. eCollection 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Despite being used interchangeably, different measures of restrained eating have been associated with different dietary behaviours. These differences have impeded replicability across the restraint literature and have made it difficult for researchers to interpret results and use the most appropriate measure for their research. Across a total sample of 1731 participants, this study compared the Restraint Scale (RS), and its subscales, to the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) across several traits related to overeating. The aim was to explore potential differences between these two questionnaires so that we could help to identify the most suitable measure as a prescreening tool for eating-related interventions. Results revealed that although the two measures are highly correlated with one another (s 0.73-0.79), the RS was more strongly associated with external (s = -0.07 to 0.11 versus -0.18 to -0.01) and disinhibited eating (s 0.46 versus 0.31), food craving (s 0.12-0.27 versus 0.02-0.13 and 0.22 versus -0.06) and body mass index (s 0.25-0.34 versus -0.13 to 0.15). The results suggest that, compared to the DEBQ, the RS is a more appropriate measure for identifying individuals who struggle the most to control their food intake.

摘要

尽管人们常常互换使用,但不同的节制饮食测量方法与不同的饮食行为相关。这些差异阻碍了节制饮食文献研究结果的可重复性,也让研究人员难以解释研究结果,难以选择最适合其研究的测量方法。在总共1731名参与者的样本中,本研究将节制量表(RS)及其子量表与荷兰饮食行为问卷(DEBQ)在与暴饮暴食相关的几个特征方面进行了比较。目的是探索这两种问卷之间的潜在差异,以便我们能够帮助确定最适合的测量方法,作为饮食相关干预措施的预筛选工具。结果显示,虽然这两种测量方法彼此高度相关(s = 0.73 - 0.79),但RS与外在饮食(s = -0.07至0.11,而DEBQ为-0.18至-0.01)、无节制饮食(s = 0.46,而DEBQ为0.31)、食物渴望(s = 0.12 - 0.27,而DEBQ为0.02 - 0.13以及s = 0.22,而DEBQ为-0.06)和体重指数(s = 0.25 - 0.34,而DEBQ为-0.13至0.15)的关联更强。结果表明,与DEBQ相比,RS是识别那些在控制食物摄入量方面最困难的个体的更合适的测量方法。

相似文献

5
Success and failure in the measurement of restraint: notes and data.约束测量中的成功与失败:注释与数据
Int J Eat Disord. 1999 May;25(4):441-9. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-108x(199905)25:4<441::aid-eat9>3.0.co;2-b.
10
Dietary restraint: intention versus behavior to restrict food intake.饮食节制:限制食物摄入的意图与行为。
Appetite. 2007 Jul;49(1):100-8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.005. Epub 2007 Jan 12.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

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