Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 28;5:12. doi: 10.1186/s40337-017-0141-7

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