共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Prevalence of DSM‐5 avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in a pediatric gastroenterology healthcare network 下载免费PDF全文
Kamryn T. Eddy PhD Jennifer J. Thomas PhD Elizabeth Hastings BS Katherine Edkins BA Evan Lamont BA Caitlin M. Nevins BA Rebecca M. Patterson BA Helen B. Murray BA Rachel Bryant‐Waugh PhD Anne E. Becker MD PhD ScM 《The International journal of eating disorders》2015,48(5):464-470
2.
3.
Sharon Iron-Segev Danielle Best Shani Arad-Rubinstein Martin Efron Yaffa Serur Hadar Dickstein Daniel Stein 《Nutrients》2020,12(11)
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a relatively new diagnostic category. We sought to determine whether the Stanford Feeding Questionnaire (SFQ), an instrument for assessing picky eating, can differentiate children with ARFID from control children, and whether children with ARFID would show more nonfeeding/eating emotional problems than controls. Fifty children with ARFID were compared to 98 controls. Parents completed the SFQ, Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and Sensory Responsiveness Questionnaire (SRQ). On the SFQ, 12 items represented child ARFID behaviors (SFQ-ARFID Scale), and another 15 items represented parental feeding problems (SFQ-PFP Scale). We found that the SFQ-ARFID and SFQ-PFP Scale scores were significantly higher in children with ARFID vs. controls. Children with ARFID demonstrated higher SDQ-Total-Difficulties, higher SDQ-Internalizing-Difficulties and lower SRQ-Hedonic scores compared with controls. Of all parameters, the SFQ-ARFID Scale best differentiated children with ARFID from control children (area under receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.939, 95% CI, 0.895–0.983, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that parental reports show more eating problems and emotional disturbances in children with ARFID vs. controls, and more parental feeding problems. Further research is required to determine whether the SFQ-ARFID Scale may serve as an effective screening tool for the identification of ARFID. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Background: Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) is characterized by persistent failure to meet nutritional needs, absence of body image distortion and often low body weight. Weight restorative treatment in ARFID-adults is provided for as in Anorexia Nervosa (AN), while the effect is unknown. The aim was to compare weight gain between ARFID and restrictive subtype of AN (AN-R), including exploring impact of medical factors and psychopathology. Methods: Individuals with ARFID (n = 7; all cases enrolled over 5 years) and AN-R (n = 80) were recruited from the Prospective Longitudinal All-comers inclusion study in Eating Disorders (PROLED) during 5 years. All underwent weight restorative inpatient treatment. Clinical characteristics at baseline and weekly weight gain were recorded and compared. Results: There were no significant differences at baseline weight, nor in weight gain between groups. Anxiety was statistically significantly higher in AN-R at baseline. Conclusions: Although there were differences in several clinical measures at baseline (Autism Quotient, symptom checklist, mood scores and Morgan Russel Outcome Scale), only anxiety was higher in AN-R. No differences in weight gain were observed, although mean values indicate a faster weight gain in the ARFID group. Standard weight restorative treatment in this study in adults with ARFID has similar weight gaining effect as in AN-R. 相似文献
10.
11.
Jessie E. Menzel PhD Erin E. Reilly PhD Tana J. Luo PhD Walter H. Kaye MD 《The International journal of eating disorders》2019,52(4):462-465
Selective eating is a common presenting problem in Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). Understanding the etiology of selective eating will lead to the creation of more effective treatments for this problem. Recent reports have linked disgust sensitivity to picky eating, and the field has yet to conceptualize the role that disgust might play in ARFID. Disgust has long been tied to formation of taste aversions and is considered at its core to be a food-related emotion. A brief review of the literature on disgust reveals that disgust has a unique psychophysiological profile compared to other emotions, like anxiety, and that disgust is resistant to extinction procedures. If disgust is implicated in the etiology of selective eating, its presence would have a significant impact on treatment approaches. This article provides an overview of the research on disgust and eating, a clinical example of the treatment challenges that disgust may pose, and an overview of the unique clinical features of disgust as they apply to psychopathology. We pose several research questions related to disgust and selective eating and discuss initial hypotheses for pursing this line of inquiry. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of this line of research for treatment. 相似文献
12.
13.
P. Evelyna Kambanis BA Megan C. Kuhnle BA Olivia B. Wons BS Jenny H. Jo MA Ani C. Keshishian BA Kristine Hauser FNP Kendra R. Becker PhD Debra L. Franko PhD Madhusmita Misra MD MPH Nadia Micali MD PhD Elizabeth A. Lawson MD MMSc Kamryn T. Eddy PhD Jennifer J. Thomas PhD 《The International journal of eating disorders》2020,53(2):256-265
14.
15.
James Lock MD PhD Shiri Sadeh-Sharvit PhD Alexa L'Insalata BA 《The International journal of eating disorders》2019,52(6):746-751
Treatments for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) lack strong empirical support. There is a critical need to conduct adequately powered studies to identify effective treatments for ARFID. As a first step, the primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing Family-based Treatment for ARFID (FBT-ARFID) to usual care (UC). The primary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, suitability, and expectancy rates. The secondary aim was to assess changes in percent estimated body weight, eating related psychopathology, and parental self-efficacy from baseline to end of treatment/UC period in both groups. Recruitment rates were 1.87 per month; 28 children with ARFID and their families were randomized and attrition rate was 21%. Therapeutic suitability and expectancy rating suggested that FBT-ARFID was acceptable to families. Effect size (ES) differences on measures of weight and clinical severity were moderate to large, favoring FBT-ARFID over UC. Parental self-efficacy improvement also demonstrated a large ES favoring FBT-ARFID, which was correlated with improvements in ARFID symptoms. There is a research gap between our knowledge base on how to treat children with ARFID and clinical need. The data presented suggest that an RCT comparing FBT-ARFID and UC is feasible to conduct. 相似文献
16.
17.
18.
19.