Evidence Hub

Eating Disorder Risk and Pathogenic Behaviors Among Collegiate Student-Athletes

Torres-McGehee TM, Uriegas NA, Hauge M, Monsma EV, Emerson DM, Smith AB

Journal of athletic training, 2023

2,054 participants

Abstract

CONTEXT: Eating disorders (EDs) are a cluster of behavioral conditions characterized by uneasy thoughts and behaviors that grow into severe or persistent eating disturbances. The demands on student-athletes may create mental and physical stressors that increase the likelihood of EDs and disordered eating.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ED risk through eating attitudes and behaviors in male and female student-athletes and across various sport types (endurance, aesthetic, power, ball or team, or technical sports).

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: Collegiate athletics.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I and II student-athletes (n = 2054; males = 631; females = 1423) from 40 institutions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed a web-based demographic survey and the Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26). Multiple χ2 analyses examined participants classified as at risk for EDs. Independent-samples t tests and a 1-way analyses of variance compared sex and sport type across EAT-26 totals and subscale (Dieting, Bulimia, and Oral Control) scores.

RESULTS: Overall, 25.3% (n = 520/2054) of student-athletes were classified as at risk for EDs. Differences were found between sex and ED risk (χ21,2054 = 32.9, P ≤ .01; 17.3% [n = 109/631] males, 28.9% [n = 411/1423] females) and across ED risk and sport type (χ24,2054 = 13.4, P = .01). When examining females only, we observed differences across ED risk and sport type (χ24,1423 = 13.4, P…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 2,054 participants or records.

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