IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2022i1p119-d1011169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accessibility of Psychological Treatments for Bulimia Nervosa: A Review of Efficacy and Engagement in Online Self-Help Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Barakat

    (InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown 2050, Australia
    School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Camperdown 2050, Australia)

  • Sarah Maguire

    (InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown 2050, Australia)

Abstract

Bulimia nervosa is an eating disorder characterised by marked impairment to one’s physical health and social functioning, as well as high rates of chronicity and comorbidity. This literature review aims to summarise existing academic research related to the symptom profile of BN, the costs and burden imposed by the illness, barriers to the receipt of care, and the evidence base for available psychological treatments. As a consequence of well-documented difficulties in accessing evidence-based treatments for eating disorders, efforts have been made towards developing innovative, diverse channels to deliver treatment, with several of these attempting to harness the potential of digital platforms. In response to the increasing number of trials investigating the utility of online treatments, this paper provides a critical review of previous attempts to examine digital interventions in the treatment of eating disorders. The results of a focused literature review are presented, including a detailed synthesis of a knowledgeable selection of high-quality articles with the aim of providing an update on the current state of research in the field. The results of the review highlight the potential for online self-help treatments to produce moderately sized reductions in core behavioural and cognitive symptoms of eating disorders. However, concern is raised regarding the methodological limitations of previous research in the field, as well as the high rates of dropout and poor adherence reported across most studies. The review suggests directions for future research, including the need to replicate previous findings using rigorous study design and methodology, as well as further investigation regarding the utility of clinician support and interactive digital features as potential mechanisms for offsetting low rates of engagement with online treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Barakat & Sarah Maguire, 2022. "Accessibility of Psychological Treatments for Bulimia Nervosa: A Review of Efficacy and Engagement in Online Self-Help Treatments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-27, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:119-:d:1011169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/119/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/119/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marjan Bakker & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruns, Stephan & Herwartz, Helmut & Ioannidis, John P.A. & Islam, Chris-Gabriel & Raters, Fabian H. C., 2023. "Statistical reporting errors in economics," MetaArXiv mbx62, Center for Open Science.
    2. Coosje L S Veldkamp & Michèle B Nuijten & Linda Dominguez-Alvarez & Marcel A L M van Assen & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. David Giofrè & Geoff Cumming & Luca Fresc & Ingrid Boedker & Patrizio Tressoldi, 2017. "The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Matteo Colombo & Georgi Duev & Michèle B Nuijten & Jan Sprenger, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Peter Pütz & Stephan B. Bruns, 2021. "The (Non‐)Significance Of Reporting Errors In Economics: Evidence From Three Top Journals," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 348-373, February.
    6. Colombo, Matteo & Duev, Georgi & Nuijten, M.B. & Sprenger, Jan, 2018. "Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy," Other publications TiSEM 075f5696-ae1a-4aae-9e17-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:119-:d:1011169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.