4.2 Article

A descriptive study of treatment-seeking adults with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder at residential and inpatient levels of care

期刊

EATING DISORDERS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2023.2241266

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the psychological and physiological characteristics of adults with ARFID, showing that they experience significant food restriction, mild depressive symptoms, high anxiety symptoms, and impaired quality of life. However, their physiological indicators were mostly normal except for low bone density and minor abnormalities in serum creatinine and hepatic enzymes. The study highlights the need for further research on treatment and outcomes for this understudied population.
Most research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) has been with children and adolescents, while the limited research on adults with ARFID has been in the domain of outpatient treatment. This descriptive study sought to explore psychological characteristics (N = 45; measured with self-report questionnaires) and physiological characteristics (N = 66; e.g. vital signs, bloodwork) at admission for 66 adults with ARFID seeking residential and inpatient levels of care. While adults with ARFID presented with significant food restriction as well as mild depressive symptoms, high anxiety symptoms, and impaired quality of life, patients presented with mostly normal physiology, except for low bone density, and trivial abnormalities in serum creatinine and hepatic enzymes. Patients in this sample were most likely to endorse fear of aversive consequences, especially those for whom ARFID symptoms had first arisen in adulthood. These results note the psychological impairment and relative physiological normalcy of treatment-seeking adults with ARFID at the outset of residential and inpatient treatment, identifying future treatment and outcome research priorities in this understudied population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据