U.S. health professionals’ perspectives on orthorexia nervosa: clinical utility, measurement and diagnosis, and perceived influence of sociocultural factors

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined U.S. health professionals’ perspectives on the clinical utility, measurement, and etiology of orthorexia nervosa (ON). Methods: Participants (n = 100) were U.S. health professionals with experience working clinically with eating disorders, including trainees, Ph.D. psychologists, social workers/mental health counselors, and medical health professionals. After reviewing the proposed ON criteria, participants responded to questions regarding the clinical utility, diagnosis, and measurement of ON, and sociocultural influence on the emergence of ON. Views of ON as a useful diagnostic category were examined as a function of participants’ current involvement in clinical versus research activities. Results: Participants mostly (71.9%) agreed that ON should be a distinct clinical diagnosis. Participants who endorsed ON as a valid diagnosis spent more time on clinical work and less time engaged in research compared to participants who disagreed (both ps < 0.05). Approximately 27% of participants believed additional components should be added to the proposed ON diagnostic criteria. Participants indicated that sociocultural factors have considerable influence on the development of ON, namely the diet and weight loss industry, and the perceptions that biological/organic/vegan and low fat/low carb/gluten free food are the healthiest. Conclusion: Professionals who spent more time working clinically with eating disorders were more likely to endorse ON as a unique disorder, and professionals who spent more time on research were more likely to disagree. To the extent that professionals who spend more time on research may shape the narrative around ON more visibly, this study underscores the importance of listening to practitioners' experiences in applied settings. Level of evidence: Level V: Opinions of authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.