Accountability in promoting representation of historically marginalized racial and ethnic populations in the eating disorders field: A call to action

Abstract

Promoting representation of historically marginalized racial and ethnic populations in the eating disorders (EDs) field among professionals and the populations studied and served has long been discussed, with limited progress. This may be due to a reinforcing feedback loop in which individuals from dominant cultures conduct research and deliver treatment, participate in research, and receive diagnoses and treatment. This insularity maintains underrepresentation: EDs in historically marginalized populations are understudied, undetected, and undertreated. An Early Career Investigators Workshop generated recommendations for change that were not inherently novel but made apparent that accountability is missing. This paper serves as a call to action to spearhead a paradigm shift from equality to equity in the ED field. We provide a theoretical framework, suggest ways to disrupt the feedback loop, and summarize actionable steps to increase accountability in ED leadership and research toward enhancing racial/ethnic justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). These actionable steps are outlined in the service of challenging our field to reflect the diversity of our global community. We must develop and implement measurable metrics to assess our progress toward increasing diversity of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and to address JEDI issues in our providers, patients, and research participants.

Structural validity of the Eating Disorder Examination—Questionnaire: A systematic review

“…Although most studies ( k = 44, 73.3%) included information on race or ethnicity, sample characteristics were sometimes unclear and, despite the wealth of studies, there remains a need for future research on samples with greater diversity, particularly regarding gender and ethnicity, to enhance generalizability to historically under‐represented groups (Goel, Jennings Mathis, et al, 2022). In line with reporting in treatment trials (Burnette et al, 2022), data on race/ethnicity were often focused on “White,” often including a binary distinction between “White” and “Other.” Moving forward, studies should collect (and report) detailed data rather than broad categories (Burnette et al, 2022), and provide data on all represented races/ethnicities, not just the majority group.…”

Predictors of treatment seeking and uptake among respondents to a widely disseminated online eating disorders screen in the United States

“…Stereotypes about who develops EDs may contribute to these disparities (e.g., SWAG stereotype), which may prevent those who identify outside of this stereotype to seek treatment (Sonneville & Lipson, 2018). Further, those identifying outside the SWAG stereotype may be more likely to experience structural treatment barriers (e.g., lack of insurance, accessible treatment options, or ED detection by healthcare providers) that impede access to care (Goel et al, 2022). Our finding that adults >24 years of age report greater treatment seeking is also consistent with prior research (Bohrer et al, 2017; Regan et al, 2017).…”

Measuring Ostracism-Induced Changes in Consumption of Palatable Food: Feasibility of a Novel Behavioral Task

“…However, the CMT did have six trials per condition for each participant, yielding higher power than a single instance of each condition per participant, or a between-participant design; additionally, our sample size was above the median for within-person studies of eating behavior ( Robinson et al, 2018 ). Another limitation is that the sample was comprised of young adult women, and the majority of participants identified as White; these demographic groups are over-represented in eating disorder research, and future research should employ more diverse samples ( Goel et al, 2022 ). Additionally, the CMT Cyberball phase was based on a modified version of Cyberball that contrasts exclusion with over-inclusion (as opposed to equal inclusion), to ensure that participants perceive the difference between conditions given the shorter rounds used in the modified version ( Sebastian et al, 2011 ).…”