Protocol for a scoping review to identify research reporting on eating disorders in minority ethnic populations in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Eating disorders (EDs) are common, severe and often life-threatening psychiatric conditions. Notwithstanding stereotypes, EDs affect individuals from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, despite similar and in some cases increased prevalence of disordered eating and EDs among minority ethnic groups, there appear to be disparities when it comes to ED diagnosis and treatment. To date, most of the existing literature exploring disordered eating and EDs among minority ethnic groups has been conducted in the USA. The present scoping review aims to examine the extent, range and nature of research activity into disordered eating and EDs in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand providing a comprehensive overview of the existing literature. A special focus will be placed on studies exploring prevalence, access to care and treatment experiences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: was used to guide the development of this scoping review protocol. A detailed systematic search of relevant databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) will be conducted. Relevant literature will also be identified from the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full-texts against specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if necessary. Relevant data will be extracted using a data charting form. Quantitative and qualitative summaries of extracted data will be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this study. Findings will be of benefit to researchers, clinicians and policy-makers by highlighting areas for future research and identifying ways to making ED treatment more accessible for individuals from all backgrounds. Findings will be disseminated via conferences, presentations and peer-reviewed journals.
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 | 0.138 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.025 |
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".