背景:教育干预措施是照顾喂养和进食障碍的年轻患者的关键因素,构成大多数治疗方法的一部分。这篇综述的目的是评估教育干预对喂养和饮食失调的青少年的影响。
方法:按照PRISMA的建议,搜索了截至2023年6月29日的电子数据库。与诊断为进食和进食障碍(神经性厌食症,回避/限制性食物摄入障碍,神经性贪食症,西班牙语和英语中的异食癖和反刍动物失调),没有时间限制,位于数据库中:PubMed,Scopus,CINAHL,科克伦图书馆,PsycINFO,CUIDEN,DIALNET,和ENFISPO。在OpenGrey和Teseo中进行了灰色文献数据库的搜索。审查方案在PROSPERO(CRD42020167736)中注册。
结果:从筛选的9744篇引文中选出了191篇文章。其中包括十份出版物。结果表明教育计划之间存在差异,包括个人和团体干预,学习技巧和各种研究方法。变量,如学习,态度和知觉的变化,人体测量参数,症状改善,饮食模式的正常化,确定了对程序和认知灵活性的评估。由于分析的大量研究的方法学质量较低,因此偏倚的风险很高。
结论:结果表明,教育干预可以影响知识水平的提高,并对健康结果产生积极影响。尽管教育是治疗这些疾病的常见做法,没有发现高质量的研究.因此,这项审查的结论是,需要额外的证据来评估教育计划的有效性,随着进一步的研究,尤其是随机对照试验,来确认这些结果。
方法:一级:系统评价。
BACKGROUND: Educational interventions are a key element in the care of young patients with feeding and eating disorders, forming part of the majority of therapeutic approaches. The aim of this
review is to evaluate the impact of educational interventions in adolescents with feeding and eating disorders.
METHODS: Following the PRISMA recommendations electronic databases were searched up to 29 June 2023. Studies related to educational interventions in young population diagnosed with feeding and eating disorders (anorexia nervosa, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, bulimia nervosa, pica and ruminative disorders and binge- eating disorder) in Spanish and English language, without temporal limitation, were located in the databases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CUIDEN, DIALNET, and ENFISPO. A search in the databases of grey literature was performed in OpenGrey and Teseo. The
review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020167736).
RESULTS: A total of 191 articles were selected from the 9744 citations screened. Ten publications were included. The results indicated variability between educational programs, including individual and group interventions, learning techniques and various research methodologies. Variables such as learning, attitudinal and perceptual changes, anthropometric parameters, symptom improvement, normalization of eating patterns, evaluation of the program and cognitive flexibility were identified. The risk of bias was high due to the low methodological quality of a large number of studies analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that educational interventions can influence the improvement of knowledge level and have a positive effect on health outcomes. Although education is a common practice in the treatment of these pathologies, high-quality studies were not identified. Thus, this
review concludes that additional evidence is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs, with further research studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to confirm these results.
METHODS: Level I: Systematic
review.