Personality Disorders and Psychological Functioning Among Latina Women with Eating Disorders

Abstract

Little is known about personality disorders (PD) and comorbidities amongst Latinas with eating disorders (ED). The dysregulation and chronicity of PDs can complicate and augment the symptomatology of EDs. This set of analyses provide a preliminary examination of PD and psychopathology in a sample of Latina women with ED. Participants (N=34) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM, Eating Disorders Examination, and Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III to assess personality pathology, and questionnaires (BDI-II and BSI) to assess psychological functioning. Results indicated the most common clinically significant trait in the sample was Depressive personality (50% of the sample had a score of 75 or higher on this trait). For BN and BED, Avoidant (41%) and Depressive (65%) personalities, respectively, were the most common clinically significant traits. Anxiety disorders were the most common psychiatric diagnoses, and 52.9% of the sample reported both clinically significant PD traits and other major psychopathology. There were no significant differences between the BED and BN groups on prevalence of PD traits and psychopathology. This pilot study highlights the need for further examination of PD and psychopathology in Latinas with ED. Unlike previous research with White women, we found no differences on PD and psychopathology between BED and BN, and the most prevalent PDs among Latinas were different than White women. Personality and psychological functioning should be assessed in all patients with ED, with ongoing research focused on identifying patterns in understudied groups such as Latinas, a practice that may improve treatment for this underserved population.

Socio-Cultural Standards Promoted by the Mass Media as Predictors of Restrictive and Bulimic Behavior

“…Other than physical (e.g., BMI) and sociocultural factors, the unhealthy eating behaviors, and eating disorders have been related to known psychological factors such as personality, mood, or distress (40)(41)(42)(43)(44). People who suffer from eating disorders often present behavioural dysregulation and personality disorders (41,42). Wang and Borders (43) studied crosssectionally and longitudinally population of students (sample 1), and patients with eating disorders (sample 2).…”

Attachment, motivational systems and anorexia nervosa: A systematic review and proposed framework for eating disorders

“…Regarding the (B) relationship, the results showed that behavioural inhibition and sensitivity to punishment (BIS) were more strongly associated with AN than with HC (Glashouwer et al, 2014; Jonker et al, 2020), as shown in the literature (Becerra, 2010; Minnick et al, 2017). However, Kanakam et al (2017) found a negative correlation between appetitive motivation of the BAS and some restrictive symptoms, such as fasting or diet abuse.…”

“…Evidence indicates that there is a direct relationship between IAS and AN (Cortés‐García et al, 2021; Forsén et al, 2019; Monteleone et al, 2017; Szalai, 2020), between BIS/BAS and AN (Becerra, 2010; Keating et al, 2016; Minnick et al, 2017; Murcia et al, 2009), and between IAS and BIS/BAS (Huh et al, 2020; Lan & Wang, 2020; Shahzadi & Walker, 2022). Based on this background and context, this study aims to identify the existence of possible joint relationships between the IAS, the BIS/BAS and AN.…”

Prevalence of personality disorders in adults with binge eating disorder—A systematic review and Bayesian meta‐analysis

“… Five additional Bayesian meta‐analyses using different weakly‐informative priors for μ (effect size) and for τ (heterogeneity), following the narrowing strategy suggested by Korner‐Nievergelt et al 48 Additionally, we also tested different scenarios for priors showing greater variance for the parameter τ (between‐study heterogeneity), to investigate the potential effect of having greater levels of variance across studies. Models with alternative weakly‐informative priors were, therefore, computed as (a) μ ~ N(0,1.5), τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,0.5); (b) μ ~ N(0,1), τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,0.5); (c) μ ~ N(0,1.81), τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,1); (d) μ ~ N(0,1.5) and τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,1); (e) μ ~ N(0,1) and τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,1); Bayesian meta‐analysis using an uninformative flat prior for μ (a prior with the precision = 0 and variance = ∞), and a very weakly‐informative prior for τ (τ ~ half‐Cauchy(0,0.5)), to investigate a more non‐informative/improper scenario for priors; Additional meta‐analysis excluding a study identified as an outlier for reporting a higher prevalence of PD based on a small sample 29 ; Finally, a frequentist meta‐analysis of the same 20 studies included in our main meta‐analysis was also computed, using a random intercept logistic regression model. The analysis used the Clopper–Pearson confidence interval for individual studies, and the maximum‐likelihood estimator for the between‐study heterogeneity parameter tau‐squared (τ 2 ).…”

“…After checking the full-texts, we excluded 67 for not meeting eligibility criteria, with a final list of 20 articles to be reviewed. 4,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] The main reasons for not meeting the eligibility criteria were: the main studied sample was not composed of adults with a valid diagnosis of BED; data on personality traits but not on PD; and no available data to calculate the proportion of BED patients with PD.…”