Skip to main content

Table 2 Description of included studies, quality ratings of study methodologies and information on study findings

From: Family-related non-abuse adverse life experiences occurring for adults diagnosed with eating disorders: a systematic review

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
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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