Prevalence of eating disorders and disordered eating in First Nations Peoples in high-income, colonial settler countries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disordered eating (DE) is often a feature of the eating disorder (ED) prodrome. EDs are complex mental health conditions which affect approximately 4% of Australians. However, research on DE and EDs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is scarce, with fewer than ten peer-reviewed studies available. These studies suggest Indigenous Australians may experience DE and EDs at equal or higher rates than non-Indigenous Australians. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on the prevalence and presentation of eating disturbances in populations comparable to Indigenous Australians-that is, First Nations Peoples from high-income, colonial settler countries-in order to identify translatable knowledge gaps and research priorities. Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic literature search of seven databases, data extraction, and narrative synthesis were conducted. Publications in English reporting the prevalence or presentation of DE or EDs among First Nations Peoples in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, and Scandinavian countries were eligible. Sixty-four publications met eligibility criteria. Lifetime ED prevalence in First Nations adults ranged from 3.3% to 4.3% for females and 0.4% to 2.6% for males. For children/adolescents, prevalence ranged from 10% to 15.6% for females and 4.4% to 5.3% for males. Body mass index, age, self-concept, psychosocial stressors, substance use, and social connection were linked to eating disturbances. Colonisation and racism affect ED experiences and treatment-seeking. Future research must include culturally validated models and tools, with leadership and co-design by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
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 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".