No abstract

Objective: Our original aim was to validate and norm common eating disorder (ED) symptom measures in a large, representative community sample of transgender adults in the United States. We recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a popular online recruitment and data collection platform both within and outside of the ED field. We present an overview of our experience using MTurk. Method: Recruitment began in Spring 2020; our original target N was 2,250 transgender adults stratified evenly across the United States. Measures included a demographics questionnaire, the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire, and the Eating Attitudes Test-26. Consistent with current literature recommendations, we implemented a comprehensive set of attention and validity measures to reduce and identify bot responding, data farming, and participant misrepresentation.Results: Recommended validity and attention checks failed to identify the majority of likely invalid responses. Our collection of two similar ED measures, thorough weight history assessment, and gender identity experiences allowed us to examine response concordance and identify impossible and improbable responses, which revealed glaring discrepancies and invalid data. Furthermore, qualitative data (e.g., emails received from MTurk workers) raised concerns about economic conditions facing MTurk workers that could compel misrepresentation.Discussion: Our results strongly suggest most of our data were invalid, and call into question results of recently published MTurk studies. We assert that caution and rigor must be applied when using MTurk as a recruitment tool for ED research, and offer several suggestions for ED researchers to mitigate and identify invalid data.

Objective: Eating disorders (EDs) were once conceptualized as primarily affecting affluent, White women, a misconception that informed research and practice for many years. Abundant evidence now discredits this stereotype, but it is unclear if prevailing "evidence-based" treatments have been evaluated in samples representative of the diversity of individuals affected by EDs. Our goal was to evaluate the reporting, inclusion, and analysis of sociodemographic variables in ED psychotherapeutic treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the US through 2020.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of ED psychotherapeutic treatment RCTs in the US and examined the reporting and inclusion of gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status (SES) of enrolled participants, as well as recruitment methods, power analyses, and discussion of limitations and generalizability.Results: Our search yielded 58 studies meeting inclusion criteria dating back to 1985.Reporting was at times incomplete, absent, or centered on the racial/gender majority group. No studies reported gender diverse participants, and men and people of color were underrepresented generally, with differences noted across diagnoses. A minority of papers considered sociodemographic variables in analyses or acknowledged limitations related to sample characteristics. Some progress was made across the decades, with studies increasingly providing full racial and ethnic data, and more men included over time. Although racial and ethnic diversity improved somewhat, progress appeared to stall in the last decade.Discussion: We summarize findings, consider context and challenges for RCT researchers, and offer suggestions for researchers, journal editors, and reviewers on improving representation, reporting, and analytic practices.Public Significance: Randomized controlled trials of eating disorder psychotherapeutic treatment in the US are increasingly reporting full race/ethnicity data, but information on SES is inconsistent and sexual orientation absent. White women still

CONTEXT: Family-based lifestyle interventions are recommended for adolescent obesity treatment, yet the optimal role of parents in treatment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine systematically the evidence from prospective randomized controlled and/or clinical trials (RCTs) to identify how parents have been involved in adolescent obesity treatment and to identify the optimal type of parental involvement to improve adolescent weight outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included PubMed, PsychINFO, and Medline (inception to July 2019). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating adolescent (12-18 years of age) obesity treatment interventions that included parents were reviewed. Studies had to include a weight-related primary outcome (BMI and BMI z score). DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible studies were identified and reviewed, following the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. RESULTS: This search identified 32 studies, of which 23 were unique RCTs. Only 5 trials experimentally manipulated the role of parents. There was diversity in the treatment target (parent, adolescent, or both) and format (group sessions, separate sessions, or mixed) of the behavioral weight loss interventions. Many studies lacked detail and/or assessments of parent-related behavioral strategies. In ∼40% of unique trials, no parent-related outcomes were reported, whereas parent weight was reported in 26% and associations between parent and adolescent weight change were examined in 17%. LIMITATIONS: Only RCTs published in English in peer-reviewed journals were eligible for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Further research, with detailed reporting, is needed to inform clinical guidelines related to optimizing the role of parents in adolescent obesity treatment.