Aim The aim of this literature review was to identify the tools developed and used to assess orthorexia nervosa (ON). Methods A systematic search was executed in PubMed, Biomed Central, and PsycINFO. The final list included 70 articles that were critically analyzed. Results A total of six tools were reported to assess ON: the BOT, the ORTO-15, the EHQ, the DOS, the BOS, and the TOS. The tools were based upon different conceptualizations of ON and of its diagnostic criteria. Although they were different, all the conceptualizations derived from the initial definition of ON provided by Bratman in 1997. None of the methodologies adopted for tool construction considered end users or client perspectives and, when carried out, the validations of the tools were fragmented and often based on specific populations. Conclusion This study may be a starting point for the construction of a new diagnostic tool for ON. Starting from the methodological weaknesses identified by this review, it was possible to derive some suggestions for future research: (a) developing a modern re-conceptualization of ON, comprehensive of end-user perspectives; (b) adopting qualitative data collection techniques to gain insights into how to diagnose ON; and (c) actively involving diverse stakeholders for constructing a new tool. Level of evidence Level of Evidence: I, systematic review.

So far health literacy has not been sufficiently discussed in the context of public health genomics. Primarily, not genomic but rather genome-based health information needs to be addressed taking into account genome-environment interactions and integrating all health determinants including genomics into a systemic and holistic approach. Translating findings from epigenomics and systems biomedicine will help to understand that individual biological pathways or networks are permanently interacting with environmental networks such as social networks. Thus, in the end also health literacy will become personalized. Genome-based health literacy is challenged by the question of which information is relevant for the individual, for what purpose, and at what time during the lifespan. Public health tools and expertise already in place can and should be used to tackle these huge challenges.

Research on the impact of music interventions has indicated positive effects on a variety of skills. These findings suggest musical interventions may have further potential to support educational processes and development of children. This paper reviews the latest evidence on the effect of musical interventions on the development of primary school-aged children. Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 through June 2016 using music, music instruction, music education, music lesson, music training, development, child, student, and pupil as key words for the search. Two reviewers independently evaluated the studies to determine whether they met the stated inclusion criteria. Studies were compared on study setup, methodological quality, intervention components, outcome variables, and efficacy. A review of these selected studies (n = 46) suggestive beneficial effects of music intervention on development of children, although clear conclusions cannot be drawn. Possible influencing factors that might contribute to the outcome of intervention are reviewed and recommendations for further research are made.

Introduction: Orthorexia nervosa (ON) is a condition that is characterized by a pathological obsession with eating foods one considers healthy and has recently been suggested as a new possible diagnosis. However, there is limited published research on health professionals’ recognition, ideas and opinions regarding the diagnosis and classification of ON.Purpose: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of clinically active health professionals on ON, and into their opinions on if and how the disorder should be classified.Results: Psychologists, psychiatrists, dietitians and physiotherapists in the Netherlands (n = 160) participated by responding to a self-administered questionnaire. Most health professionals (78%) reported that they thought that ON should have its own diagnosis. This opinion was more common in physical health professionals than in mental health professionals. A majority (74%) agreed that ON fits within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) category Eating and Feeding Disorders. Interviews with 15 mental health professionals were analyzed using code frequencies and continuous comparisons. Mental health professionals reported believing that ON is prevalent in the general population and that a separate diagnosis would have both advantages and disadvantages for health professionals and patients. Interview participants described the typical ON patient as being young, female, and highly educated; characteristics that overlap with typical anorexia nervosa and obsessive compulsive disorder cases.Conclusion: The results suggest that some health professionals from a heterogenous sample in the Netherlands think ON should have a separate diagnosis in the DSM, however, the study needs to be replicated to allow for further generalization. Methodological design of this study may be utilized in future research with similar aims. The findings can serve as a foundation for investigation of individuals’ experiences of distress caused by ON, and further refinement of the diagnostic criteria.

This systematic review examines and consolidates existing evidence on stigma associated with the top four non-communicable diseases (NCDs)—cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes—and its impact on the lives of people affected. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, JSTOR, Science Direct, and Web of Science for original research in English that explored health-related stigma among people living with either of the four NCDs. A three-step integrative synthesis of data was conducted. Twenty-six articles (qualitative = 15; quantitative = 11) were selected, with most (n = 15) related to cancers, followed by diabetes (n = 7), chronic respiratory diseases (n = 3), and cardiovascular diseases (n = 1). Blame, shame, and fear were the main causes of stigma, the origin and nature of which differed according to the disease-specific features. The manifestations (enacted and felt stigma) and consequences (social, behavioral, psychological, and medical) of stigma across NCDs were similar. Inconsistencies existed in the conceptualization of stigma processes. To fill this gap, we developed an NCD-related stigma framework. People living with NCDs can experience stigma, which can negatively impact their health, management of their disease, and quality of life. The new framework can help in improving the understanding of the processes and experiences of stigma related to NCDs.