Lauren Stammers1,2, Lisa Wong1,2, Leonid Churilov1, Sarah Price1, Elif Ekinci1,2, Priya Sumithran3,4. 1. Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 2. Department of Endocrinology, Austin Health, 300 Waterdale Road, Heidelberg Heights, VIC, 3081, Australia. 3. Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. priyas@unimelb.edu.au. 4. Department of Endocrinology, Austin Health, 300 Waterdale Road, Heidelberg Heights, VIC, 3081, Australia. priyas@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Emotional eating may contribute to weight gain and difficulty with weight loss. Questionnaires are currently the primary method used to identify this behaviour but there is no gold standard for detecting emotional eating, making it difficult to know which questionnaire to use for this purpose. This study assesses two questionnaires validated for assessment of emotional eating in patients with obesity, with the aim of investigating their interchangeability in the clinical setting. METHODS: 387 adult participants were recruited from the obesity treatment service at a tertiary metropolitan hospital. Responses were obtained for the 25-item Emotional Eating Scale (EES) and the 4-item coping subscale of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale (PEMS). Agreement was analysed using quadratically weighted Cohen's κ scores. Substantial agreement was defined as κ 0.61-0.80. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) body mass index and age of participants was 42.1 kg/m2 (36.4-48.9 kg/m2) and 51.6 years (41.1-61.4 years), respectively, and 70.5% of participants were female. The EES and PEMS were found to have substantial agreement (κ 0.71; 95% CI 0.65-0.76). Agreement remained substantial when analysing responses from men (0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.73), women (0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.79) and post-bariatric surgery patients (0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.82) separately. CONCLUSION: Despite focusing on different elements of emotional eating behaviour, the substantial agreement between the EES and PEMS coping subscale suggests that they identify respondents' susceptibility to emotional eating with consistency, including in people who have undergone bariatric surgery. LEVEL V: Opinions of respected authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This observational study has not been registered as a clinical trial.
PURPOSE: Emotional eating may contribute to weight gain and difficulty with weight loss. Questionnaires are currently the primary method used to identify this behaviour but there is no gold standard for detecting emotional eating, making it difficult to know which questionnaire to use for this purpose. This study assesses two questionnaires validated for assessment of emotional eating in patients with obesity, with the aim of investigating their interchangeability in the clinical setting. METHODS: 387 adult participants were recruited from the obesity treatment service at a tertiary metropolitan hospital. Responses were obtained for the 25-item Emotional Eating Scale (EES) and the 4-item coping subscale of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale (PEMS). Agreement was analysed using quadratically weighted Cohen's κ scores. Substantial agreement was defined as κ 0.61-0.80. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) body mass index and age of participants was 42.1 kg/m2 (36.4-48.9 kg/m2) and 51.6 years (41.1-61.4 years), respectively, and 70.5% of participants were female. The EES and PEMS were found to have substantial agreement (κ 0.71; 95% CI 0.65-0.76). Agreement remained substantial when analysing responses from men (0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.73), women (0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.79) and post-bariatric surgery patients (0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.82) separately. CONCLUSION: Despite focusing on different elements of emotional eating behaviour, the substantial agreement between the EES and PEMS coping subscale suggests that they identify respondents' susceptibility to emotional eating with consistency, including in people who have undergone bariatric surgery. LEVEL V: Opinions of respected authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This observational study has not been registered as a clinical trial.
Authors: Elissa Epel; Sherlyn Jimenez; Kelly Brownell; Laura Stroud; Catherine Stoney; Ray Niaura Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Michael Lutter; Ichiro Sakata; Sherri Osborne-Lawrence; Sherry A Rovinsky; Jason G Anderson; Saendy Jung; Shari Birnbaum; Masashi Yanagisawa; Joel K Elmquist; Eric J Nestler; Jeffrey M Zigman Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Mary M Boggiano; Lowell E Wenger; Bulent Turan; Mindy M Tatum; Maria D Sylvester; Phillip R Morgan; Kathryn E Morse; Emilee E Burgess Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2015-06-01
Authors: Angelina R Sutin; Kerri Boutelle; Susan M Czajkowski; Elissa S Epel; Paige A Green; Christine M Hunter; Elise L Rice; David M Williams; Deborah Young-Hyman; Alexander J Rothman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.002