Department of Psychology, Social Sciences 399, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222, USA.
Eat Weight Disord. 2023 Mar 22;28(1):31. doi: 10.1007/s40519-023-01551-6.
This study examined U.S. health professionals' perspectives on the clinical utility, measurement, and etiology of orthorexia nervosa (ON).
Participants (n = 100) were U.S. health professionals with experience working clinically with eating disorders, including trainees, Ph.D. psychologists, social workers/mental health counselors, and medical health professionals. After reviewing the proposed ON criteria, participants responded to questions regarding the clinical utility, diagnosis, and measurement of ON, and sociocultural influence on the emergence of ON. Views of ON as a useful diagnostic category were examined as a function of participants' current involvement in clinical versus research activities.
Participants mostly (71.9%) agreed that ON should be a distinct clinical diagnosis. Participants who endorsed ON as a valid diagnosis spent more time on clinical work and less time engaged in research compared to participants who disagreed (both ps < 0.05). Approximately 27% of participants believed additional components should be added to the proposed ON diagnostic criteria. Participants indicated that sociocultural factors have considerable influence on the development of ON, namely the diet and weight loss industry, and the perceptions that biological/organic/vegan and low fat/low carb/gluten free food are the healthiest.
Professionals who spent more time working clinically with eating disorders were more likely to endorse ON as a unique disorder, and professionals who spent more time on research were more likely to disagree. To the extent that professionals who spend more time on research may shape the narrative around ON more visibly, this study underscores the importance of listening to practitioners' experiences in applied settings.
Level V: Opinions of authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.
本研究探讨了美国健康专业人员对饮食强迫症（ON）的临床实用性、测量和病因的看法。
参与者（n=100）为具有与饮食障碍临床工作经验的美国健康专业人员，包括受训者、心理学博士、社会工作者/心理健康顾问和医疗保健专业人员。在审查了拟议的 ON 标准后，参与者回答了有关 ON 的临床实用性、诊断和测量以及 ON 出现的社会文化影响的问题。将 ON 视为有用的诊断类别与参与者当前参与临床与研究活动的情况相关联进行了检查。
参与者大多（71.9%）认为 ON 应该是一个明确的临床诊断。与不同意的参与者相比，赞成 ON 作为有效诊断的参与者花费更多的时间在临床工作上，而花费较少的时间参与研究（均 p<0.05）。大约 27%的参与者认为应该在拟议的 ON 诊断标准中添加其他成分。参与者表示，社会文化因素对 ON 的发展有相当大的影响，即饮食和减肥行业，以及对生物/有机/素食和低脂肪/低碳水化合物/无麸质食物最健康的看法。
花费更多时间与饮食障碍进行临床工作的专业人员更有可能认可 ON 是一种独特的障碍，而花费更多时间进行研究的专业人员则更有可能不同意。在某种程度上，从事研究的专业人员可能会更明显地塑造 ON 的叙述，因此本研究强调了倾听从业人员在应用环境中的经验的重要性。
V 级：基于描述性研究、综述、临床经验或专家委员会报告的权威意见。
