Evidence Hub

Eating-disorder psychopathology in female athletes and non-athletes: A meta-analysis

Chapa DAN, Johnson SN, Richson BN, Bjorlie K, Won YQ, Nelson SV, Ayres J, Jun D et al.

The International journal of eating disorders, 2022

100 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is ongoing discussion about whether sports participation is a risk or protective factor for eating disorders (EDs). Research is mixed, with some studies suggesting that athletes have higher mean levels of ED psychopathology compared to nonathletes, while other studies suggest the opposite effect or no differences. The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to identify whether female athletes reported higher mean levels of ED psychopathology compared to nonathletes.

METHOD: Following PRISMA guidelines, we identified 56 studies that reported ED psychopathology for female athletes and nonathletes. A three-level random-effects model of between- and within-study variance was completed for the following outcome variables: overall ED psychopathology, body dissatisfaction, drive for thinness, restricting, and loss-of-control eating.

RESULTS: Athletes reported lower levels of body dissatisfaction compared to nonathletes (g = -.21, p < .0001). Athletes and nonathletes reported similar levels of overall ED psychopathology, drive for thinness, restricting, and loss-of-control eating on average. Sport type significantly moderated standardized mean difference effect sizes of ED psychopathology in athletes versus nonathletes. Effect sizes comparing levels of drive for thinness, restricting, and loss-of-control eating in athletes versus nonathletes were larger for studies with athletes participating in aesthetic/lean sports compared to nonaesthetic/nonlean sports.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free