Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34305743›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Using Behavioural Reasoning Theory to Explore Reasons for Dietary Restriction: A Qualitative Study of Orthorexic Behavioural Tendencies in the UK.

Elina Mitrofanova, Elizabeth K L Pummell, Hilda M Mulrooney, Andrea Petróczi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elina MitrofanovaFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth K L PummellFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.
Hilda M MulrooneyFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.
Andrea PetrócziFaculty of Science Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.
Kingston University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthorexia Nervosa (ON) has gained increased attention in academia since 1997. However, like other "Exia" conditions, there is debate around its inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This study aimed to examine the experiences of those following a diet indicative of ON in the United Kingdom. This information is essential to the development of diagnostic criteria and classification of ON. Behavioural Reasoning Theory was used to explore reasons contributing to the development of ON. Ten individuals (two males and eight females), aged 23-35 years, took part in semi-structured interviews. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the results. Four themes emerged from the data-journey, social, rules/control, and ethical considerations which highlighted contributing factors to the development of ON behaviours, the impact of these behaviours on individuals' social lives, and a strive for control. These findings are the first to suggest that ON involves a more complex set of behaviours than current definitions and proposed diagnostic criteria suggest and highlight the need to consider a variety of reasons for restricted diet when developing diagnostic criteria, screening tools, and classification in the DSM.

Indexed as

eating disorderfood choicesfood ethicsfood purityhealthy eatingorthorexia nervosarestricted diet

Identifiers

PMID34305743
PMCPMC8295483
OpenAlexW3179637719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.