Consequences of child emotional abuse, emotional neglect and exposure to intimate partner violence for eating disorders: a systematic critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment and eating disorders are significant public health problems. Yet, to date, research has focused on the role of child physical and sexual abuse in eating-related pathology. This is despite the fact that globally, exposure to emotional abuse, emotional neglect and intimate partner violence are the three of the most common forms of child maltreatment. The objective of the present study is to systematically identify and critically review the literature examining the association between child emotional abuse (EA), emotional neglect (EN), and exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and adult eating-disordered behavior and eating disorders. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC up to October 2015 to identify original research studies that investigated the association between EA, EN and children's exposure to IPV, with adult eating disorders or eating-disordered behavior using a quantitative research design. Database searches were complemented with forward and backward citation chaining. Studies were critically appraised using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: A total of 5556 publications were screened for this review resulting in twenty-three articles included in the present synthesis. These studies focused predominantly on EA and EN, with a minority examining the role of child exposure to IPV in adult eating-related pathology. Prevalence of EA and EN ranged from 21.0% to 66.0%, respectively. No prevalence information was provided in relation to child exposure to IPV. Samples included predominantly White women. The methodological quality of the available literature is generally low. Currently, the available literature precludes the possibility of determining the extent to which EA, EN or child exposure to IPV have independent explanatory influence in adult eating-related pathology above what has been identified for physical and sexual abuse. CONCLUSIONS: While a large proportion of adults with eating disorders or eating-disordered behavior report EA, EN, or child exposure to IPV , there is a paucity of high-quality evidence about these relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".