Conflict of interest:The authors report no declarations of financial interest.
DSM-5 eating disorders and other specified eating and feeding disorders: Is there a meaningful differentiation?
Article first published online: 25 FEB 2014
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Volume 47, Issue 5, pages 524–533, July 2014
How to Cite
Fairweather-Schmidt, A. K. and Wade, T. D. (2014), DSM-5 eating disorders and other specified eating and feeding disorders: Is there a meaningful differentiation?. Int. J. Eat. Disord., 47: 524–533. doi: 10.1002/eat.22257
Supported by 324715 and 480420 from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and by the Australian Twin Registry, which is supported by an Enabling Grant (ID 310667), from the NHMRC administered by the University of Melbourne.
- Issue published online: 10 JUN 2014
- Article first published online: 25 FEB 2014
- Manuscript Accepted: 18 JAN 2014
- Manuscript Revised: 17 JAN 2014
- Manuscript Received: 13 NOV 2013
- eating disorders;
In the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for eating disorders, two main groups appear, threshold eating disorders (TED; anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder), and other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED). In addition to calculating prevalence of these two groups, we examined the degree to which they could be differentiated in terms of impairment and risk factors.
Adolescent female twins (N = 699) were interviewed with the Eating Disorder Examination on three occasions spanning 12.70–19.84 years of age. Assessments also included self-report measures related to impairment and risk.
Prevalence of DSM-5 ED in this adolescent population was 10.4%; 5.4% for TED and 5% for OSFED. Impairment levels did not distinguish TED and OSFED groups at any wave. Examination of latent risk factors showed TED and OSFED groups to share a common genetic basis; however, largely nonoverlapping unique environmental influences contributed to the two groups. Specific risk factors commonly differentiated the no ED and TED groups, but not OSFED.
The findings suggest that TED and OSFED groups cannot be discriminated by prevalence or impairment or genetic risk factors. It is anticipated that OSFED will possess limited clinical utility for adolescents. Future research should examine clinical cases of these two groups in terms of meaningful differences, and a research focus should be maintained on both groups. Further examination of specific environmental risk factors that may attenuate the level of symptoms between the two groups may provide useful information for prevention efforts. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2014; 47:524–533)