We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Longstanding biases have fostered the erroneous notion that only those of higher socioeconomic status (SES) experience eating disorders (EDs); however, EDs present across all SES strata. Considering the dearth of ED research among those of lower SES, this study examined (1) the overall association between SES and ED prevalence, and (2) ED prevalence in the context of four relevant social identities (i.e. SES, gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity) from an intersectional perspective, as unique combinations of multiple social identities may differentially influence risk.
Methods
A sample of 120 891 undergraduate/graduate students from the Healthy Minds Study self-reported family SES with a single-item question, gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity, and were screened for ED risk.
Results
Participants of lower SES had 1.27 (95% CI 1.25–1.30) times greater prevalence of a positive ED screen than those of higher SES. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the four social identities beyond the association with SES. For example, positive ED screens were particularly common among lower SES, Latinx, sexual minority cisgender men and women, with 52% of bisexual men and 52% of lesbian women of Latinx ethnicity and lower SES screening positive.
Conclusions
Although positive ED screens were more common among undergraduate/graduate students of lower SES, the particularly high ED risk reported by certain groups of lower SES with multiple minority identities reinforces the importance of investigating multi-layered constructs of identity when identifying groups at disproportionate risk.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.