Dataset Information

Eating Disorders on College Campuses in the United States: Current Insight on Screening, Prevention, and Treatment.

ABSTRACT: Background:Eating disorders are prevalent on college campuses and pose significant risks to student health, well-being, and academic performance. However, few students receive access to evidence-based prevention and treatment. Objective:The present review synthesizes the recent literature on ED screening, prevention, and treatment approaches on college campuses in the United States. We provide an overview of ED screening efforts on college campuses, including relevant screening tools, summarize the extant literature on prevention programming, as well psychological and pharmacological treatment approaches, and outline limitations of current programming and provide future directions for research. Conclusion:Recent advances in ED screening, prevention, and treatment efforts highlight the importance of early detection and intervention. Innovative approaches to screening and dissemination of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs on college campuses are warranted. Implications for future research are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Grammer AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7470246 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Eating Disorders on College Campuses in the United States: Current Insight on Screening, Prevention, and Treatment.

Grammer Anne C AC Fitzsimmons-Craft Ellen E EE Laing Olivia O Pietro Bianca De B Wilfley Denise E DE

Current psychopharmacology 20200101 2

<h4>Background</h4>Eating disorders are prevalent on college campuses and pose significant risks to student health, well-being, and academic performance. However, few students receive access to evidence-based prevention and treatment.<h4>Objective</h4>The present review synthesizes the recent literature on ED screening, prevention, and treatment approaches on college campuses in the United States. We provide an overview of ED screening efforts on college campuses, including relevant screening to ...[more]

PMID: 32905358

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColleges in the United States are determining how to operate safely amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.ObjectiveTo examine the clinical outcomes, cost, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on college campuses.DesignThe Clinical and Economic Analysis of COVID-19 interventions (CEACOV) model, a dynamic microsimulation model, was used to examine alternative mitigation strategies. The CEACOV model tracks infections accrued by students and faculty, accounting for community transmissions.Data sourcesData from published literature were used to obtain parameters related to COVID-19 and contact-hours.Target populationUndergraduate students and faculty at U.S. colleges.Time horizonOne semester (105 days).PerspectiveModified societal.InterventionCOVID-19 mitigation strategies, including social distancing, masks, and routine laboratory screening.Outcome measuresInfections among students and faculty per 5000 students and per 1000 faculty, isolation days, tests, costs, cost per infection prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).Results of base-case analysisAmong students, mitigation strategies reduced COVID-19 cases from 3746 with no mitigation to 493 with extensive social distancing and masks, and further to 151 when laboratory testing was added among asymptomatic persons every 3 days. Among faculty, these values were 164, 28, and 25 cases, respectively. Costs ranged from about $0.4 million for minimal social distancing to about $0.9 million to $2.1 million for strategies involving laboratory testing ($10 per test), depending on testing frequency. Extensive social distancing with masks cost $170 per infection prevented ($49 200 per QALY) compared with masks alone. Adding routine laboratory testing increased cost per infection prevented to between $2010 and $17 210 (cost per QALY gained, $811 400 to $2 804 600).Results of sensitivity analysisResults were most sensitive to test costs.LimitationData are from multiple sources.ConclusionExtensive social distancing with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is very cost-effective. Routine laboratory testing would prevent 96% of infections and require low-cost tests to be economically attractive.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:ImportanceNational guidelines recommend screening for several cancer types, yet screening rates remain below target. To date, cancer screening patterns by smoking status, a major cancer risk factor, are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess cancer screening patterns among individuals who never smoked (never smokers), formerly smoked (former smokers), and currently smoke (current smokers) in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed data from the National Health Interview Survey years 2010, 2013, and 2015. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) who had never reported a cancer diagnosis were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018, through February 1, 2019.ExposuresReceipt of cancer screening, including colonoscopy, mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and Papanicolaou test per the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresMultivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing cancer screening by smoking status. Among participants who received a specific screening test, AORs and 95% CIs of receiving the test within guideline-recommended intervals were also assessed.ResultsAmong 83 176 participants (45 851 [55.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 47 [18] years), 51 014 (61.3%) were never smokers; 17 235 (20.7%), former smokers; and 14 927 (17.9%), current smokers. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to ever have received a colonoscopy (43.8% vs 57.7%; AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < .001), mammogram (88.8% vs 93.3%; AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001), or prostate-specific antigen test (46.1% vs 60.8%; AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P = .001). Among those who had ever received a specific screening test, current smokers were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (92.1% vs 95.1%; AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P = .02), mammography (62.4% vs 79.4%; AOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.60; P < .001), or Papanicolaou test (80.9% vs 90.8%; AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67; P < .001) within the recommended time frame compared with never smokers. Former smokers were more likely than never smokers to undergo any of the screening studies evaluated, with the exception of prostate-specific antigen screening (colonoscopy, 65.2% vs 57.7%; AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30; P < .001; mammography, 95.7% vs 93.3%; AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01; Papanicolaou test, 97.6% vs 91.4%; AOR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.93-3.26; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that current smokers appeared to be less likely to receive guideline-concordant screening studies for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer compared with never smokers. Further research is needed to identify barriers to screening among current smokers with the goal of increasing acceptance and uptake of cancer screening among this population at high risk of cancer.

Dataset Information

Eating Disorders on College Campuses in the United States: Current Insight on Screening, Prevention, and Treatment.

Publications

Eating Disorders on College Campuses in the United States: Current Insight on Screening, Prevention, and Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets