The Prevalence and Adverse Associations of Stigmatization in People with Eating Disorders

20
THE PREVALENCE AND ADVERSE ASSOCIATIONS OF STIGMATIZATION IN PEOPLE WITH EATING DISORDERS

Transcript of The Prevalence and Adverse Associations of Stigmatization in People with Eating Disorders

THE PREVALENCE ANDADVERSE ASSOCIATIONS OFSTIGMATIZATION IN PEOPLEWITH EATING DISORDERS

#1 Perceived as attention-seekers who are

personally responsible for their condition

#2 Current stigma-related interventions target

public perceptions about eating disorders

Eating disorders are stigmatized

#1 Is the stigma most commonly perpetrated by the public the same as that most commonly experienced by sufferers?

#2 Is the most commonly experienced stigma also the most damaging?

#3 Are anti-stigma initiatives targeting the most commonly experienced/damaging public perceptions?

#4 Are males stigmatised more than females? If so, how?

Gaps in the literature

› Young adults (mean age = 24.7 years)

› Predominantly female (95%)

› Residing in USA (33%), Aus (31%) or UK (21%)

› Students (48%) or employed (36%)

› Single (63.4%) or in a relationship (34%)

› Currently receving tx (57%), received treatment in the

past (33%), or never recevied treatment (7%)

Sample

Anorexia nervosa Bulimia nervosa EDNOS

165 66 86

Comparison of EDE-Q global scores

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Anorexia Bulimia EDNOS

Clinical norm(Welch et al. 2011)

Community norm(Mond et al. 2006)

Q. “How frequently have you been subjected

to the following stigmatizing attitudes/beliefs

due to your eating disorder?”

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Always

Frequency of stigma

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Dangerous

Drug user

Dumb

Narcissist

Lazy

Bad influence on others

Loser

Weak

Less of a man/woman

Disgusting

Incompetent

"Attention seeker"

Shameful

Don't have a "real" condition

No self-control

Deceptive

Personally responsible

Able to just pull myself together

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

NeverProportion of participants 0% 100%

Q. “How damaging have the following

attitudes and beliefs been to your physical or

psychological wellbeing?”

Not at all damaging

A little damaging

Moderately damaging

Very damaging

Extremely damaging

Damage due to stigma

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Drug user

Dangerous

Lazy

Loser

Narcissist

Less of a man/woman

Dumb

Deceptive

Weak

Bad influence on others

No self-control

Shameful

"Attention seeker"

Disgusting

Incompetent

Personally responsible

Don't have a "real" condition

Able to just pull myself together

Extremely damaging

Very damaging

Moderately damaging

A little damaging

Not at all damaging Proportion of participants 0% 100%

#1 No self-control

More frequently experienced for bulimia than

for anorexia or EDNOS

Medium/large effect: F(1, 314) = 28.8, p< .001

#2 Less of a man/less of a woman

More frequently experienced for males than

females

Medium effect: F(1 314) = 11.42, p < .001

Notable between-groups differences

What predicts changes in the

frequency of (overall) stigma?

Predictor B t(296) p Partial η2

Eating disorder symptoms 0.24 3.89 < .001 .05

Depression symptoms 0.01 0.15 .884 < .01

Duration of disorder 0.11 2.11 .036 .02

Self-esteem -0.19 -2.79 .006 .03

Self-stigma of seeking psych help 0.22 4.02 < .001 .05

BulimiaREF vs anorexia 0.07 1.38 .169 < .01

EDNOSREF vs anorexia -0.03 -0.65 .516 < .01

In treatmentREF vs not in treatment -0.01 -0.05 .960 < .01

MaleREF vs female -0.05 -0.96 .340 < .01

#1 Destigmatising eating disorders? Prioritise

the perceptions that eating disorders are trivial

and/or self-inflicted

#2 Destigmatising bulimia? Go after the

perception that sufferers have no self-control

#3 Destigmatising males? Go after the

perception that male sufferers have less

masculinity/manhood

Discussion

#1 Diagnoses were self-reported and not

confirmed through interviews

#2 Cross-sectional design

#3 Few males = limited power to detect sex

differences

#4 Self-stigma may have been a contaminant

Limitations

GRIFFITHS, S., MOND, J. M., MURRAY, S.

B., & TOUYZ, S. (IN PRESS). THE

PREVALENCE AND ADVERSE ASSOCIATIONS

OF STIGMATIZATION IN PEOPLE WITH EATING

DISORDERS. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

EATING DISORDERS

Comparison of EDE-Q subscale

scores

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Restraint EatingConcern

ShapeConcern

WeightConcern

Clinical norms(Welch et al. 2011)

Community norms(Mond et al. 2006)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Dangerous

Drug user

Dumb

Narcissist

Lazy

Bad influence on others

Loser

Weak

Less of a man/woman

Disgusting

Incompetent

"Attention seeker"

Shameful

Don't have a "real" condition

No self-control

Deceptive

Personally responsible

Able to "just pull myself together"

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

NeverProportion of participants 0% 100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Drug user

Dangerous

Lazy

Loser

Narcissist

Less of a man/woman

Dumb

Deceptive

Weak

Bad influence on others

No self-control

Shameful

"Attention seeker"

Disgusting

Incompetent

Personally responsible

Don't have a "real" condition

Be able to "just pull myself together"

Extremely damaging

Very damaging

Moderately damaging

A little damaging

Not at all damaging Proportion of participants 0% 100%

#1 BMI. F(2, 298) = 25.6, p < .001

› Anorexia (17.4)

› Bulimia (23.2)

› EDNOS (23.7)

#2 Vomiting. 2(2) = 87.5, p < .001

› Anorexia (0)

› Bulimia (20)

› EDNOS (0)

Comparison of key indicators

#3 O Binge. 2(2) = 100.1, p < .001

› Anorexia (0)

› Bulimia (15)

› EDNOS (0.5)

#4 S Binge. 2(2) = 1.86, p = .395

› Anorexia (5)

› Bulimia (10)

› EDNOS 10)

#1 Should be able to just ‘pull myself together”

Experienced very often or always: 77.3%

Very damaging or extremely damaging: 83.6%

#2 Personally responsible for my condition

Experienced very often or always: 68.8%

Very damaging or extremely damaging: 74.8%

The two stigma standouts

#4 More stigma is associated with more

marked eating disorder symptoms and a

longer duration of disorder (and vice versa)

#5 More stigma is associated with more self-

stigma of seeking psychological help (and vice

versa)

Discussion