ArticleAppetite2022
The qualitative evaluation of the Yale Food addiction scale 2.0.
Article in Appetite, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis assessing reliability of the Yale Food Addiction Scale: Implications for compulsive eating and obesity.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- The prognostic role of food addiction for weight loss treatment outcomes in individuals with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Ultra-processed food addiction in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the USA.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed food addiction symptoms profile according to weight status among Brazilian adults.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Validity of the Addiction-like Eating Behavior Scale among Patients with Compulsive Eating.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Measuring Pleasure from Food-Validation of the Food Pleasure Scale by Multiple Techniques and Mixed Methods.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- From theory to practice: challenges and rewards of implementing ketogenic metabolic therapy in mental health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Social, clinical, and policy implications of ultra-processed food addiction.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Exploring Psychological Constructs in People Receiving Treatment for Addictive Eating Behaviours: "I Hate Loving Food as Much as I Do".Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- No association of the dopamine D2 receptor genetic bilocus score (rs1800497/rs1799732) on food addiction and food reinforcement in Chilean adults.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Withdrawal: A key consideration in evaluating whether highly processed foods are addictive.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (YFAS 2.0) operationalizes food addiction (FA) by applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM 5) criteria for substance use disorder (SUD) to the overconsumption of highly processed foods. The YFAS 2.0 has been quantitatively validated across numerous populations, but has never undergone qualitative analysis.
aimsUsing qualitative methods we aimed to determine if the interpretation YFAS 2.0 is aligned with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUD, to determine if any items are perceived as irrelevant to the lived-experience of FA, and to determine if there are constructs central to the lived-experience of FA that are not captured by the scale.
methodsWe interviewed 16 participants who met criteria for FA on the modified YFAS 2.0 using semi-structured interviews to understand each participants' interpretation of items on the scale and their perceptions of how the scale matched their lived-experience of FA. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to code responses and identify themes.
resultsMost interpretations aligned with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUDs. Withdrawal and tolerance-related items were subject to some misinterpretations. Participants viewed problem-focused symptoms (e.g., interpersonal problems) as the least relevant to their lived-experience. Novel themes not included on the YFAS 2.0 (e.g., emotional eating) emerged. SUMMARY: Our study supports the validity of the YFAS 2.0 by showing consistency with the DSM 5 conceptualization of SUDs and consistency with the lived-experience of individuals who endorse FA. Future research should explore the novel themes that emerged in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.