Table 2.
Participant, sample, design, outcome measures, QualSyst score and key findings for studies with cross-sectional designs
| Study | Country | Participant age (years) | Sample size | Participant gender | Participant ethnicity | Sample population | Design | Outcome measure | Qual Syst score | Protective factors identified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer (2001) [26] | USA | M = 20.6, SD = 3.1 | 560 | Female | 78.6% White 14.3% Black |
University students | Cross sectional design | BULIT-R, EDI −2 (bulimia subscale) | .900 | Family meals |
| Berge, Wall, Larson, Eisenberg, Loth, Neumark-Sztainer (2014)* [33] | USA | M = 14.4 SD = 2.0 |
2793 | Mixed (Separate analyses) | 18.9% White, 29.0% Black, 19.9% Asian, 16.9%Hispanic, 3.7% Native American, 11.6% Mixed/Other | School students in Project EAT | Cross sectional design | Dieting/unhealthy or extreme WCBs/binge eating in last year (Yes/No) | .950 | Family functioning. Higher sense of connection with either parent. Mothers having knowledge of children’s whereabouts Father’s knowledge of whereabouts (girls only). NOT parental control |
| Cordero & Israel (2009) [27] | USA | Mode = 19 | 212 | Female | 55.9% White, 19.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 10.9% Latino/Hispanic, 2.8% Black, 1.4% Middle-Eastern, 9.5% Other/Mixed |
University students | Cross sectional design | EAT-26 | .950 | Low negative parental comments about shape and weight |
| Croll, Neumark-Sztainer, Story & Ireland (2002) [37] | USA | 9th and 12th grade students | 81247 | Mixed (49% female) (Separate analyses) | 87% White, 3.5% Asian, 2% Black, 1.5% Hispanic, 1% American Indian. | School students completing Minnesota Student Survey | Cross sectional design | Extreme WCBs/binge eating in last year (Yes/No) | .850 | Two parent household. Family connectedness |
| Fonseca, Ireland & Resnick (2002) [38] | USA | M = 14.4 | 9042 | Mixed (51% female) (Separate analyses) | Not described | School students completing Voice of Connecticut Survey | Cross sectional design | Disordered WCBs (Yes/No) | .950 | Family connectedness. Maternal presence in the home. Strong family communication (girls only). High parental expectations (boys only). High supervision and monitoring (girls only- risk factor for boys) |
| French, Leffert, Story, Neumark-Sztainer, Hannan & Benson (2001)# [16] | USA | 6th -12th grade | 95395 | Mixed (50% female) (Separate analyses) | 86% White, 5% multiracial, 4% Hispanic, 2% each African-American, American Indian and Asian. | School students | Cross sectional design | Binge/purge behaviour, weight loss to make others worry ever (Yes/No) | .900 | Developmental assets: Family support, Positive family communication, Clear family boundaries |
| Fulkerson, Story, Mellin, Leffert, Neumark-Sztainer & French (2006) # [44] | USA | 6th -12th grade | 99462 | Mixed (50% female) (Separate analyses) | 86% White, 5% multiracial, 4% Hispanic, 2% each African-American, American Indian and Asian. | School students | Cross sectional design | Binge/purge behaviour, weight loss to make others worry ever (Yes/No) | .900 | Family meals |
| Lampis, Agus & Cacciarru (2014) [48] | Italy | M = 15.9 SD = 1.4 |
1083 | Mixed (55% female) | Not described | School students | Cross sectional design | EDI – Italian version | .900 | Family functioning. Mother and father caring style Family cohesiveness. |
| Loth, Wall, Choi, Bucchianeri, Quick, Larson, Neumark-Sztainer (2015) * [46] |
USA | M = 14.5 SD = 1.98 |
2793 | Mixed (53.3% female) (Separate analyses) | 18.9% White, 29.0% Black, 19.9% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic, 3.7% Native American, 11.6% mixed/other | School students in Project EAT (+parents) | Cross sectional design | Dieting/unhealthy or extreme WCBs/binge eating in the last year (Yes/No) | .900 | Family meals only where: High levels of parent dieting + High enjoyment (boys), Little teasing + Good family functioning + Low levels of weight talk (girls) |
| McVey, Pepler, Davis, Flett & Abdolell (2002) [39] | Canada | M = 12.9 SD = .62 |
363 | Female | 74% White | School students | Cross sectional design | ChEAT | .950 | Paternal involvement. Unconditional parental support |
| Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, Story & Fulkerson (2004)* [43] | USA | M = 14.9 SD = 1.7 |
4746 | Mixed (Separate analyses) | ‘Ethnically diverse’ | School students in Project EAT | Cross sectional design | Chronic dieting/unhealthy or extreme WCBs/binge eating in the last year (Yes/No) | .950 | Family meals |
| Perkins, Luster & Yank (2002) [40] | USA | M = 14.9 SD = 1.75 |
18592 | Female | 83% European American, 8% African American, 3% Native American, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian or Pacific Islander | Adolescents who have experienced physical abuse | Cross sectional design | Vomiting after eating to control weight two or more times per week. | .950 | Family support |
| Scoffier, Maiano, & D'Arripe-Longueville (2010) [41] | France | M = 15.75 SD = 3.00 |
227 | Female | Not described | Elite aesthetic athletes (dancers/gymnasts/synchronised swimmers) | Cross sectional design | EAT-26 – French Version | .950 | Quality of relationship with parents |
| Twamley & Davis (1999) [42] | USA | M = 20 SD = 2.4 |
249 | Female | 77% White | University students | Cross sectional design | EAT-26, BULIT-R combined into composite score | .900 | Low family influence to control weight in childhood |
| Wang et al. (2013) [45] | USA | 6th to 8th graders | 15461 | Mixed (49% female) (separate analyses) | 82.3% White, 6.7% Hispanic, 4.3% Black, 4.2% Asian. | School students in Massachusetts Healthy Choices Study | Cross sectional design | Disordered WCBs (Yes/No) | .950 | Family meals. Parents providing lifts to physical activity (girls only) |
*/#/~ = same participant sample