| Literature DB >> 25802888 |
Marisol Mora1, Eva Penelo2, Teresa Gutiérrez1, Paola Espinoza1, Marcela L González1, Rosa M Raich1.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the long-term effects of two school-based prevention programs administered to a universal mixed-sex sample of school-going adolescents on disturbed eating attitudes, aesthetic ideal internalization, and other eating disorder risk factors, when compared to a control group.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25802888 PMCID: PMC4353415 DOI: 10.1155/2015/328753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Flow diagram of progress through the phases of the study.
Eating disorder prevention program contents.
| NUT | (A) Definition of balanced eating | Detailed self-recording of food consumed in the five meals a day for a week | |
|
| |||
| ML | (A) Feminine beauty throughout history: | (A) Masculine beauty throughout history: | Comparison of feminine and masculine aesthetic models |
|
| |||
| Activism | How to criticise media advertisements | How to criticise media advertisements | |
Observed means (and SD) of measures over time and ANOVA results.
| Measure | Group ( | Observed mean (SD) | ANOVA: | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest | 1st follow-up | 2nd follow-up | Interaction | Group | Time | ||
| (baseline) | (month 1) | (month 5) | (month 13) | |||||
| EAT | ML + NUT (48) | 7.04 (9.85) | 5.81 (9.96) | 6.10 (8.86) | 6.40 (9.13) | 0.99 (.376) | 1.88 (.156) | 0.59 (.442) |
| Theatre (43) | 7.35 (9.11) | 6.23 (8.77) | 6.51 (8.88) | 5.60 (5.56) | ||||
| Control (64) | 5.94 (7.32) | 5.78 (7.66) | 7.56 (8.39) | 6.38 (8.12) | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| SCOFF | ML + NUT (48) | 0.83 (1.21) | 0.83 (1.26) | 0.65 (1.06) | 0.60 (0.82) | 2.31 (.058) | 0.20 (.816) | 0.09 (.912) |
| Theatre (43) | 0.74 (0.98) | 0.70 (0.94) | 0.72 (0.96) | 0.70 (0.94) | ||||
| Control (64) | 0.98 (1.08) | 0.67 (0.93) | 0.94 (1.14) | 0.56 (0.99) | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| SATAQ-R internalisation | ML + NUT (47) | 2.60 (0.92) | 2.40 (0.97) | 2.31 (0.96) | 2.53 (0.87) | 2.36 (.098) |
| 0.95 (.332) |
| Theatre (43) | 2.71 (0.91) | 2.58 (0.88) | 2.56 (1.03) | 2.64 (0.96) | ||||
| Control (63) | 2.87 (0.72) | 2.76 (0.81) | 2.98 (0.78) | 2.85 (0.80) | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| SATAQ-R awareness | ML + NUT (47) | 3.35 (0.76) | 3.30 (0.92) | 3.21 (0.88) | 3.40 (0.87) | 2.09 (.082) | 2.56 (.081) | 2.55 (.080) |
| Theatre (43) | 3.58 (0.72) | 3.40 (0.74) | 3.49 (0.93) | 3.50 (0.82) | ||||
| Control (63) | 3.63 (0.65) | 3.63 (0.72) | 3.76 (0.64) | 3.59 (0.71) | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| CDRS body dissatisfaction | ML + NUT (49) | 0.84 (1.12) | 0.76 (0.94) | 0.88 (0.83) | 0.80 (0.98) | 0.62 (.646) | 0.62 (.538) | 1.89 (.153) |
| Theatre (43) | 0.87 (1.01) | 0.81 (0.90) | 0.94 (0.83) | 1.02 (1.06) | ||||
| Control (64) | 0.84 (0.91) | 0.79 (0.68) | 0.77 (0.69) | 0.86 (0.85) | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| RSES self-esteem | ML + NUT (48) | 30.19 (6.02) | 31.44 (5.74) | 31.90 (6.02) | 31.15 (5.20) | 2.25 (.109) |
| 1.89 (.171) |
| Theatre (43) | 30.40 (5.12) | 30.88 (4.87) | 32.21 (5.32) | 30.81 (5.28) | ||||
| Control (64) | 30.58 (4.02) | 30.25 (5.52) | 29.59 (4.88) | 30.34 (5.39) | ||||
Note: results in bold are significant at .05 level.
Figure 2Profiles for statistically significant comparisons among groups for SATAQ-R internalization (a) and RSES self-esteem scores (b).