Non‐suicidal self‐injury among individuals with an eating disorder: A systematic review and prevalence meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury across eating disorders (EDs) and within diagnostic categories through systematic review and proportional, or so-called prevalence, meta-analysis. METHOD: Included studies had to contain individuals with a verified diagnosis of an ED. The last literature search was conducted on September 11, 2023, for studies published on or before September 2023 without a restriction on earliest publication year. Results were synthesized and analyzed using the "metaprop" package in R and presented using forest plots. Bias was assessed by a Peters' regression test and funnel plot. RESULTS: 79 studies published between 1985 and 2023 were included encompassing 32,334 individuals with an ED. Importantly, 42 studies were not included in any other meta-analyses on self-injury in EDs to date. Overall prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury was 34.59% (95%CI = 30.49-38.81). Prevalence in anorexia nervosa restrictive type, binge/purge type, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and other specified feeding/eating disorder were 23.19% (95%CI = 16.96-30.03%), 41.98% (95%CI = 32.35-51.91%), 36.97% (95%CI = 30.69-43.46%), 21.21% (95%CI = 14.93-28.12%) and 37.65% (95%CI = 28.59-47.09%), respectively. Prevalence estimations could not be estimated for other ED categories due to lack of a sufficient number of studies. DISCUSSION: Non-suicidal self-injury is prevalent across both binge/purge and restrictive EDs. Considering the transdiagnostic nature of self-injurious behaviors in ED, the results highlight the importance of assessment and monitoring of self-injury in people with ED, irrespective of specific diagnoses. The method of determining self-injury varied across studies and may limit this study. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the prevalence of self-injury across eating disorders irrespective of diagnosis and within specific EDs. While diagnoses known to exhibit self-injurious behaviors (e.g., bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa binge/purge subtype) demonstrated the highest prevalence of self-injury, all diagnoses were found to have a prevalence greater than 20%. These findings suggest the importance of assessing and monitoring all individuals with an eating disorder for the presence of self-injury.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".