Table 2 Description of included studies, quality ratings of study methodologies and information on study findings
Study information | Participant information | Quality | Details and findings reported | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author (year) Country | Data source Total sample (age in years) | % female | Comparisons | MMAT | Measure of adversity | Findings | Abuse (y/n) | |||||
Adversity domain | ||||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | |||||||
A. Qualitative design | ||||||||||||
1. Arthur-Cameselle et al. (2017) [2] USA | College sample N = 29 (M = 20.1; range = 18–24) | 100% | Athletes with ED (A: n = 12; M = 20.5) vs. Non-athletes with EDs (NA: n = 17; M = 19.8). [EDs: AN (n = 17), BN (n = 3), BED (n = 1), AN+BN (n = 8)] | 1.1 1.2 ● 1.3 ● 1.4 ● 1.5 ● | Semi-structured interview | ✓ | ✓ | Y | ||||
2. Reid et al. (2019) [60] UK | ED charity in Northern England N = 16 (Range = 19–58) | 94% | No comparisons [EDs: not specified] | 1.1 ● 1.2 ● 1.3 1.4 ● 1.5 ● | Adjusted version of Dan McAdams Life Story Interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
B. Descriptive/ non-comparative design | ||||||||||||
3. Duarte & Pinto-Gouveia (2017) [20] Portugal | Treatment seekers from a university hospital N = 114 (M = 36.62; SD = 37.62; range = 20–63) | 100% | No comparison [EDs: BED = 100%] | 4.1 ● 4.2 ● 4.3 ● 4.4 4.5 ● | Shame Experiences Interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
4. Noordenbos et al. (2002) [46] The Netherlands | Dutch Foundation of AN and BN N = 41 (M = 34.3; SD = 7.6; range = 25–53) | 100% | No comparison [EDs: AN = 44%, AN+BN = 41%, BN = 15%] | 4.1 ● 4.2 ● 4.3 ○ 4.4 ● 4.5 ○ | Self-report questionnaire | ✓ | Y | |||||
5. Sweetingham & Waller (2008) [68] UK | Specialist ED service N = 92 (M = 28.5; SD = 8.17; range = 18–58) | 100% | No comparison [EDs: ANR = 13%, AN-BP = 8%, BN-P = 27%, BN-NP = 8%, EDNOS = 44%] | 4.1 ● 4.2 ● 4.3 ● 4.4 4.5 ● | Experience of Shame Scale | ✓ | Y | |||||
C. Observational/ comparative design | ||||||||||||
6. Boumann & Yates (1994) [5] USA | University hospital, ED clinic and advertisement in general population N = 50 (Range 18–43) | 100% | BN (n = 25) vs. Control (n = 25) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ○ 3.5 ● | Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria interview | ✓ | ✓ | N | ||||
7. Calam et al. (1990) [10] UK | Clinical practice, self-help groups, university and places of employment N = 380 | 100% | ED (n = 98) vs. Control (n = 242) [EDs: AN = 31%, BN/Hx AN = 35%, BNX = 34%] | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Parental Bonding Instrument | ✓ | N | |||||
8. Connan et al. (2007) [15] UK | Specialist inpatient unit, register, university advertisement N = 47 (Range = 18–45) | 100% | AN (n = 18, M = 26.4, SD = 6.4) vs. R-AN (n = 13, M = 27.4, SD = 4.5) vs. Controls (n = 16, M = 27.5, SD = 4.6) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Measure of Parental Style | ✓ | Y | |||||
9. Cuijpers et al. (1999) [16] The Netherlands | Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study N = 7046 | 49% | ACOA (n = 586) vs. non-ACOA (n = 6460) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ○ 3.3 ● 3.4 3.5 ● | Interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
10. Dalle Grave et al. (1996) [17, 18] Italy | Inpatient treatment unit N = 103 | 100% | ANR (n = 30, M = 21.9, SD = 6.0) vs. ANB (n = 12, M = 25.7, SD = 4.0) vs. BN (n = 17, M = 22.1, SD = 2.9) vs. BED (n = 30, M = 36.4, SD = 13.2) vs. Obese (n = 14 M = 40.5, SD = 13.5) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ○ 3.3 ● 3.4 ○ 3.5 ● | Semi-structured Interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
11. Dalle Grave et al. (1996) [17, 18] Italy | ED treatment unit N = 238 | 100% | ANR (n = 30, M = 21.9, SD = 6.0) vs. ANB (n = 22, M = 24.9, SD = 4.2) vs. BN (n = 24, M = 22.3, SD = 2.7) vs. BED (n = 30, M = 36.4, SD = 13.2) vs. Sch. (n = 20, M = 33.9, SD = 7.1) vs. Controls (n = 112, M = 18.1 years, SD = 0.8 years) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ○ 3.3 ● 3.4 ○ 3.5 ● | Semi-structured interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
12. Degortes et al. (2014) [19] Italy | Outpatient ED unit N = 214 | un. | BED (n = 107; M = 31.1; SD = 11.1) vs. BN (n = 107; M = 25.4; SD = 5.6) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Semi-structured interview | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Y | |||
13. Gonçalves et al. (2016) [25] Portugal | Specialised ED treatment setting, other treatment settings and schools/ universities N = 180 | 100% | BN (n = 60, M = 21.52, SD = 4.86) vs. Controls (n = 60, M = 21.50, SD = 4.81) vs. PC (n = 60, M = 21.45 SD = 4.86) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ○ 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Y | |
14. Lehoux & Howe (2007) [36] Canada | Outpatient ED unit N = 80 (Range = 18–38) | 100% | BN (n = 40, M = 25.13, SD = 5.26) vs. Sisters (n = 40, M = 26.32, SD = 5.25) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience | ✓ | Y | |||||
15. Machado et al. (2014) [38] Portugal | Specialised ED treatment setting, other treatment settings and schools/ universities N = 240 | 100% | AN (n = 86, M = 20.02, SD = 4.49) vs. Controls (n = 86, M = 20.08, SD = 4.24) * AN (n = 68, M = 19.74, SD = 4.76) vs. PC (n = 68, M = 19.79, SD = 4.74) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Y | |||
16. Mangweth et al. (1997) [39] Austria | University advertisement N = 85 | 0% | Austrian ED (n = 30, M = 25.7, SD = 4.8) vs. Austrian control (n = 30, M = 23.8, SD = 3.1) vs. American ED (n = 25, M = 21.2, SD = 3.3) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 3.5 ● | Semi-structured interview | ✓ | ✓ | Y | ||||
17. Manwaring et al. (2006) [40] USA | Advertisement in the community N = 155 (M = 31.17; SD = 5.73; range = 18–40 | 100% | Binge-first BED (n = 125, M = 30.70, SD = 5.83) vs. Diet-first BED (n = 30, M = 32.07, SD = 5.46) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview | ✓ | Y | |||||
18. Monteleone et al. (2019) [44] Italy | ED centre N = 177 | 100% | ANR (n = 41, M = 25.45; SD = 8.02) vs. BP (n = 59; M = 27.14; SD = 9.78) vs. Control (n = 77, M = 25.58, SD = 2.31) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Parental Bonding Instrument | ✓ | Y | |||||
19. Pike et al. (2006) [54] USA | Database and advertisement N = 431 (Range = 18–40) | 100% | BED (n = 162, M = 30.8, SD = 5.8) vs. Control (n = 162, M = 30.0, SD = 5.6) *** BED (n = 107, M = 30.6, SD = 5.9) vs. PC (n = 107, M = 29.5, SD = 6.7) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview | ✓ | ✓ | Y | ||||
20. Pike et al. (2008) [53] USA | Database and advertisement N = 150 (Range = 18–40) | 100% | AN (n = 50, M = 26.70, SD = 6.23) vs. Control (n = 50, M = 26.56, SD = 5.51) vs. PC (n = 50, M = 27.02, SD = 6.05) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview, Parental Bonding Instrument | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Y | |
21. Schmidt et al. (1993) [63] UK | ED treatment unit N = 203 | 99% | ANR (n = 64, M = 24.0, SD = 6.2) vs. ANB (n = 23, M = 24.7, SD = 6.9) vs. BN/Hx AN (n = 37, M = 23.6, SD = 5.3) vs. BN (n = 79, M = 24.4, SD = 5.4) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Semi-structured interview | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Y | |
22. Striegel-Moore et al. (2005) [65] USA | Consumer database and advertisement N = 321 (Range = 18–40) | 100% | BED (n = 107) vs. PC (n = 107) vs. Control (n = 107) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ○ 3.5 ● | Oxford Risk Factor Interview | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | N | ||
23. Swanson et al. (2010) [67] UK | Inpatient treatment facility and university campus N = 119 (Range = 18–48) | 100% | AN (n = 43, M = 24.67, SD = 6.81) vs. Controls (n = 76, M = 20.53, SD = 5.1) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ○ 3.5 ● | Parental Bonding Instrument | ✓ | N | |||||
24. Tagay et al. (2014) [69] Germany | Inpatient clinic and private practice N = 103 (M = 29.11; SD = 10.53; range = 18–68) | 100% | AN (n = 52; M = 28.32; SD = 11.67) vs. BN (n = 51; M = 29.88; SD = 9.34) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Essen Trauma Inventory | ✓ | Y | |||||
25. Wade et al. (2007) [72] Australia | Twin Registry N = 1056 (M = 35; SD = 2.11; range 28–40) | 100% | AN = 23 vs. BN = 20 vs. MD = 186 vs. Control = 393 | 3.1 ● 3.2 ○ 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Family Life Events interview, Oxford Risk Factor Interview, Parental Bonding Instrument, Revised Moos Family Environment Scale | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | N | |||
26. Webster & Palmer (2000) [74] UK | ED services, psychiatric unit of general hospital, general medical practices N = 160 (Range = 18–49) | 100% | AN (n = 28, M = 29) vs. BN (n = 32; M = 30) vs. AN+BN (n = 20; M = 30) vs. MD (n = 40; M = 34) vs. Control (n = 40, M = 34) | 3.1 ● 3.2 ● 3.3 ● 3.4 ● 3.5 ● | Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Interview | ✓ | ✓ | Y | ||||
- A1 = Adverse parenting style; A2 = Family disharmony; A3 = Loss of a family member, relative or someone close; A4 = Familial mental health issues; A5 = Family comments about weight, eating or appearance; A6 = Family disruptions
- MMAT = Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; N = number of participants in total sample; M = mean age; SD = standard deviation; range = age range; un. = unknown; n = number of participants in sub-samples; ● = yes; ○ = no;
= can’t tell - ED Eating disorder, AN anorexia nervosa, BN bulimia nervosa, BED binge eating disorder, AN+BN mixed anorexia and bulimia, ANR AN restrictive subtype, AN-BP AN binging/ purging subtype, BN-P BN purging subtype, BN-NP BN non-purging subtype, EDNOS Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, BN/Hx AN BN with a history of AN, BNX BN with no history of AN, R-AN Recovered AN, ACOA adult children of alcoholics, Non-ACOA non adult children of alcoholics, ANB AN binge eating/purging type, sch. schizophrenia, PC psychiatric controls, BP bingeing-purging, MD major depression
= can’t tell