ReviewDialogues in health2026
Intersectionality-informed eating pathology research: A scoping review.
Review in Dialogues in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This scoping review aimed to synthesize findings from intersectionality-informed eating pathology (EP) research and documented how intersectionality has been operationalized in this body of literature. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted in October 2022 and updated in May 2025 across six databases. Articles meeting the following criteria were included: 1) written in English, 2) published in peer-reviewed journals, 3) acknowledged and/or employed intersectionality as a study rationale, 4) employed intersectional investigations, and 5) addressed EP as an outcome. Results: A total of 42 articles were included, comprising 27 quantitative, 14 qualitative, and one mixed-methods study. Limited engagement with intersectionality was evident, with 21 quantitative and 11 qualitative findings citing foundational authors and 11 quantitative and 8 qualitative findings providing a definition or explanation of intersectionality. While all qualitative articles addressed the concept of power by considering both social identities and systems of oppression, less than half of the quantitative articles did so ( Conclusion: Most EP research is limited in its engagement with intersectionality. This review highlights the underrepresentation of diverse social identities and associated systems of oppression, as well as prevalent patterns of gender binarism. Based on these gaps, recommendations for future research were provided.
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.