ArticleBMJ open2026
Primary care use among adults with eating disorders in England: a population-based cohort study using electronic health records.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine primary care contacts among individuals with eating disorders (EDs) and assess differences across diagnoses and ethnic backgrounds.
designMatched cohort study using retrospective primary care data.
settingPrimary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) covering 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2023.
participants46 473 individuals aged 18-65 years, with a recorded ED diagnosis or a referral to ED services, matched by age, sex and practice location (ratio 1:3) to 145 286 individuals without an ED. PRIMARY/SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of primary care contacts in 24 months prior to ED diagnosis or referral to ED specialist service. Secondary outcomes examined whether ethnicity impacted likelihood of referral to specialist ED services.
resultsMost individuals had a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (43.0%), followed by bulimia nervosa (13.8%) and other specified feeding and ED (6.6%). 40.6% were aged 18-25 years, 79.5% were female and ethnicity was predominantly White (83.7%), with smaller proportions Asian (6.3%) and Black (3.4%). Compared with non-ED controls, cases had approximately double the rate of primary care contacts (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.96, 95% CI 1.94 to 1.98). Elevated contact rates were observed across all ED diagnostic groups, with IRRs ranging from 1.78 (95% CI 1.75 to 1.82) for anorexia nervosa to 2.45 (95% CI 2.09 to 2.88) for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (all p<0.001). Contact rates were significantly lower across all minoritised ethnic groups compared with White individuals. Referral odds were significantly lower among Asian (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94) and Black patients (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.79).
conclusionsThere is a need to increase ED awareness within minoritised communities, alongside culturally inclusive primary care adaptations to support help-seeking for EDs. Targeted education for clinicians and patients in primary care may also improve screening and recognition of EDs across diverse presentations and communities, facilitating access to timely, evidence-based care. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The dataset from this study is held securely at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Access may be granted on completing a data request. The CPRD Ethnicity Record sources underlying data from HES and primary care data copyright 2025, re-used with the permission of The Health & Social Care Information Centre.
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.