Skip to main content

Table 2 Diagnostic hashtag theme and code totals and code group differences

From: Visions of recovery: a cross-diagnostic examination of eating disorder pro-recovery communities on TikTok

ED behaviors

ANA

ARFID

BED

MIA

ORTHO

Total

Significance

Dietary restriction (n, %)

8, 16.0%

10, 21.3%

11, 22.0%

8, 17.8%

16, 32.7%

53

χ2 (4, 241) = 4.75, p = 0.314

Binge eating (n, %)*

0, 0%*

0, 0%*

27, 54.0%*

4, 8.9%

1, 2.0%*

32

χ2 (4, 241) = 92.98, p < .001

Compensatory behaviors (n, %)*

2, 4.0%

0, 0%*

3, 6.0%

9, 20.0%*

3, 6.1%

17

χ2 (4, 241) = 15.93, p = 0.003

Theme occurrence

       

Centrality of food to ED and recovery

31

39

38

27

32

167

 

 Eating/food discussed (n, %)*

31, 62.0%

38, 80.9%

38, 76.0%

23, 51.1%

30, 61.2%

160

χ2 (4, 241) = 12.20, p = 0.016

 Food visible (n, %) ^

19, 38.0%

23, 48.9%

22, 44.0%

11, 24.4%

14, 28.6%

89

χ2 (4, 241) = 8.49, p = 0.075

 Eating visible (n, %)

11, 22.4%

16, 34.0%

10, 20.0%

7, 15.6%

7, 14.3%

51

χ2 (4, 241) = 6.98, p = 0.137

 FDOE (n, %)*

9, 18.0%^

3, 6.4%

10, 20.0%*

1, 2.2%

1, 2.0%^

24

Fishers = 15.57, p = 0.002

 Fear Food (n, %)*

9, 18.0%

22, 46.8%*

3, 6.0%^

7, 15.6%

9, 18.4%

50

χ2 (4, 241) = 27.16, p < .001

What eating disorders look and feel like

26

23

20

29

36

134

 

 Explaining EDs (n, %)^

16, 32.0%

15, 31.9%

14, 28.0%

18, 20.2%

26, 53.1%

89

χ2 (4, 241) = 8.40, p = 0.078

 Gallows humor (n, %)*

22, 44.0%*

10, 21.3%

7, 14.0%*

13, 28.9%

18, 36.7%

70

χ2 (4, 241) = 13.70, p = 0.008

 Personification of EDs (n, %)*

1, 2.0%

3, 6.4%

1, 2.0%

12, 26.7%*

4, 8.2%

21

Fishers = 18.97, p < .001

Recovery as process

40

39

38

40

37

194

 

 Me then/me now (n, %)*

13, 26.0%

6, 12.8%*

18, 36.0%

14, 31.1%

23, 46.9%*

74

χ2 (4, 241) = 14.360, p = 0.006

 Recovery is going well (n, %)

21, 42.0%

20, 42.6%

26, 52.0%

18, 40.0%

19, 38.8%

104

χ2 (4, 241) = 2.19, p = 0.706

 Recovery is a struggle (n, %)

21, 42.0%

24, 51.1%

16, 32.0%

23, 51.1%

15, 30.6%

99

χ2 (4, 241) = 7.75, p = 0.101

Getting and giving help

22

27

28

26

19

122

 

 Recovery tips (n, %)*

4, 8.0%

5, 10.6%

17, 34.0%*

7, 15.6%

6, 12.2%

39

χ2 (4, 241) = 15.81, p = 0.003

 Showing support (n, %)

8, 16.0%

11, 23.4%

8, 16.0%

10, 22.2%

9, 18.4%

46

χ2 (4, 241) = 1.49, p = 0.830

 Trigger warning (n, %)^

2, 4.0%

8, 17.0%

5, 10.0%

10, 22.2%

4, 8.2%

29

χ2 (4, 241) = 9.46, p = 0.049

 Treatment (n, %)^

15, 30.0%

13, 27.7%

6, 12.2%

6, 13.3%

7, 14.3%

47

χ2 (4, 241) = 9.06, p = 0.059

 Inpatient storytime (n, %)^

8, 16.0%

3, 6.5%

1, 2.0%

4, 8.9%

1, 2.0%

17

Fishers = 8.94, p = 0.045

Negotiating diet culture

17

9

32

14

35

107

 

 Diet culture critique (n, %)*

8, 16.0%

6, 12.8%^

11, 22.0%

6, 13.3%^

31, 63.3%*

62

χ2 (4, 241) = 46.72, p < .001

 Diet culture promotion (n, %)*

3, 6.0%

1, 2.1%^

20, 40.0*

3, 6.7%

1, 2.0%*

28

χ2 (4, 241) = 50.34, p < .001

  1. ANA #anarecovery, ARFID #arfidrecovery, BED #bedrecovery, MIA #miarecovery, ORTHO #orthorexiarecovery, ED eating disorder, FDOE full day of eating
  2. *Statistically significant group differences at p < .05 level after application of the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure
  3. ^Marginally significant group differences at p < .1. After the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure, the highest p-value considered statistically significant was p = 0.016, and the highest p-value considered marginally significant was p = 0.078. For cell comparisons using Z-scores, a significant p-value was set to p < 0.05. We only assessed cell comparisons in cases when the omnibus test was significant after the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. Fishers Exact Tests were used if any expected cell count was less than 5