Examination of the Clinical Utility of Eating Disorder and Disordered Eating Screening Tools in Young Athletes: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Many screening tools are used to identify eating disorders (ED) and disordered eating (DE) in individuals. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the most commonly used ED/DE screening tools for young male and female athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping Review.

METHODS

Following the Johanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidelines, PubMed, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, SPORTdiscus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched using keywords related to eating disorder, disordered eating, athletes, and screening. Included articles were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or cross-sectional studies published in English between 2011-2023; included primarily non-aesthetic athletes aged 14-24 years; and utilized an ED/DE screening tool for diagnostic purposes. Articles were excluded if analysis of ED/DE was a secondary purpose or < 20 athletes participated. Tools utilized and demographic and outcomes data were extracted and qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty articles were included. The Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26), the Sick, Control, One, Fat, Food (SCOFF) questionnaire, and the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) were most used among all included articles. Three articles examined only males and used a variety of tools. Five articles utilized a tool specifically designed for athletes: the Eating Disorder Screen for Athletes (EDSA), Brief Eating Disorder in Athletes Questionnaire (BEDA-Q) or the ATHLETE questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

While the EAT-26 is most used for diagnosing ED/DE risk within young athletes, clinical utility of screening tools for male athletes is varied. Combinations of tools utilized for examining ED/DE risk in athletes are not agreed upon. Continued research is needed to assess the clinical utility of screening tools that identify ED/DE risk specifically in athletes. Tool adjustment or development for male athletes may be necessary.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2a.