Rumination is a cognitive process involving repetitive thoughts about negative experiences and emotions and is associated with psychopathology. Rumination has been implicated in mood and anxiety disorders, and there is a growing body of research on rumination in relation to eating disorder (ED) psychopathology. The current meta-analytic review focused on the literature addressing rumination and ED psychopathology. A comprehensive search process identified 38 studies, which primarily used cross-sectional designs with non-clinical samples. Results demonstrated that rumination was concurrently (r = 0.33) and prospectively (r = 0.22-0.23) associated with ED psychopathology, and that groups with ED psychopathology evidenced higher levels of rumination compared to non-ED control groups (g = 0.95), though no significant differences in rumination were observed when comparing anorexia nervosa to bulimia nervosa groups (g = 0.09). In addition, a narrative review of five experimental studies suggested that rumination in response to ED-related stimuli was related to increased negative affect and negative body-related cognitions across clinical and non-clinical samples. The type of rumination and sample population emerged as moderators of effect sizes, such that larger effects were observed among samples using ED-specific measures of rumination and heterogeneous samples compared to only non-clinical samples. Taken together, this literature demonstrates that rumination is a salient process in ED psychopathology, though the literature is characterized by methodological limitations and the need for more fully elaborated theories on the role of rumination in EDs. Findings are discussed in the context of existing models of rumination and ED psychopathology, with suggestions for future research in this area.
Findings suggest that symptoms related to shape and weight concerns and guilt are central ED symptoms, while physical symptoms, self-esteem, and feeling overwhelmed are links that may underlie comorbidities in EDs. Results provided some support for the validity of network approaches, in that admission networks conveyed prognostic information. However, the lack of correspondence between symptom reduction and change in network strength indicates that future research is needed to examine network dynamics in the context of intervention and relapse prevention.
While these reviews have generally suggested varying patterns of neurocognitive deficits across EDs, there remain critical limitations regarding the methodological quality of these studies (e.g., the lack of prospective designs, consideration of confounding influences, or examination of interrelationships between neurocognitive domains and relationships between neurocognition and other relevant behavioral constructs). Specifically, we outline 10 key areas that are imperative to address in future research in this area in order to move our field forward.
Our current understanding of the etiology and maintenance of eating disorders and obesity continues to be far from complete. Similarly, our understanding of determinants of both successful and unsuccessful weight loss surgery is also quite limited. While a number of research methodologies have been applied to these areas, one methodology that has recently seen a rise in popularity is the use of ecological momentary assessment (EMA). EMA allows one to study a variety of variables of interest in the natural environment. The study of eating disorders, obesity, and bariatric surgery has all been conducted using EMA recently. The current study is a review of these areas and summarizes the recent literature (past 3 years) in eating disorders, obesity, and bariatric surgery using EMA methodology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.