ArticleBMJ open2022
University students' understanding and opinions of eating disorders: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact and acceptability of a mental health literacy course for UK university students: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Understanding eating disorders in French undergraduate students: gender gaps, lifestyle factors, and barriers to care.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2026Article
- Determining the Mental Health Literacy Level of University Students and Examining Their Attitudes Towards Seeking Psychological Help.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs) affect 1.25 million people in the UK. Evidence suggests the public display stigma and poor mental health literacy (MHL) towards EDs. There is a high prevalence of EDs in university populations, so it is important to determine the MHL of this at-risk group. Qualitative research exploring the MHL of this population is incomplete.
objectiveExplore university students' beliefs and opinions of EDs, their knowledge of symptoms, treatment and help sources and how these are influenced by biological sex.
designA qualitative study, using semistructured interviews analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
settingThe University of Birmingham.
participantsSeven female and seven male University of Birmingham students.
resultsAnalysis revealed six themes, each with subthemes: ED characteristics, causes, body image, seeking help, stigma and awareness. Students displayed poor awareness towards ED signs and symptoms, causes and help sources. Students were not stigmatising towards EDs, but many perceived them as a female problem and believed society to be stigmatising. Many referenced informal sources of information such as social media and expressed a desire for ED teaching. Sex did not have a significant influence on knowledge or opinions of EDs in this study; however, there were some differences, for example, some males were more likely to see EDs as a weakness and to perceive themselves as having low levels of knowledge.
conclusionsUniversity students show broad awareness of EDs; however, knowledge of certain aspects of ED-MHL including help sources and symptom recognition was lacking. Although students were not stigmatising of EDs themselves, many perceived high levels of public stigma. This, alongside poor knowledge, may delay help-seeking. Campaigns educating students and the public about EDs would aid earlier diagnosis, improving long-term outcomes. Further research into awareness and knowledge in other populations would be beneficial.
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.