The current COVID-19 pandemic has created a global context likely to increase eating disorder (ED) risk and symptoms, decrease factors that protect against EDs, and exacerbate barriers to care. Three pathways exist by which this pandemic may exacerbate ED risk. One, the disruptions to daily routines and constraints to outdoor activities may increase weight and shape concerns, and negatively impact eating, exercise, and sleeping patterns, which may in turn increase ED risk and symptoms.Relatedly, the pandemic and accompanying social restrictions may deprive individuals of social support and adaptive coping strategies, thereby potentially elevating ED risk and symptoms by removing protective factors. Two, increased exposure to ED-specific or anxiety-provoking media, as well as increased reliance on video conferencing, may increase ED risk and symptoms. Three, fears of contagion may increase ED symptoms specifically related to health concerns, or by the pursuit of restrictive diets focused on increasing immunity. In addition, elevated rates of stress and negative affect due to the pandemic and social isolation may also contribute to increasing risk. Evaluating and assessing these factors are key to better understanding the impact of the pandemic on ED risk and recovery and to inform resource dissemination and targets.

No abstract

Purpose Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (ὀρθός, right and ὄρεξις, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with “correct” eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included. Methods 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A–Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B–Consequences; C–Onset; D–Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants. Results 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON. Conclusions This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel. Level of evidence Level V: opinions of expert committees

No abstract

Objective Orthorexia nervosa (ON) is defined as an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating, focusing on concerns regarding food quality and composition. Currently, there is still a lack of consensus about a clear definition of the construct. Specifically, it has yet to be clarified whether ON pertains to eating disorders (EDs) or obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis addressing the magnitude of the association between these groups of symptoms. Method PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception up to February 2021. Data from individual studies were pooled using a random‐effects model. Pearson's r was used as the effect size metric. Subgroup analyses were conducted exploring the role of ON‐related instruments, body mass index, study quality, and cultural context. Results Thirty‐six studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta‐analysis. Random‐effects model yielded a moderate association between ON and EDs symptoms with an overall effect size of r = .36 (p < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30–0.43). On the other hand, the results showed a small association between ON and OCD symptoms with a mean effect size of r = .21 (p < .001; 95% CI = 0.15–0.27). Discussion Meta‐analytic findings showed that ON symptoms are more associated to EDs compared to OCD. Despite the similarities, the nonhigh magnitude of the pooled correlations suggests that ON might be different from pre‐existing EDs and OCD. Hence, ON might be treated as a stand‐alone ED and included as an emerging syndrome in the DSM classification.