Cited by 69Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies

Research review: Effectiveness of universal eating disorder prevention interventions in improving body image among children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chua, Joelle Yan Xin, Tam, Wilson, Shorey, Shefaly·2020·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Increasingly, children are at risk of developing eating disorders. A systematic review and a meta‐analysis were conducted to examine the effectiveness of universal eating disorder prevention interventions in improving body image, internalization of appearance ideals, and self‐esteem among children aged 5–17 years old. Methods Nine electronic databases were systematically searched from each database’s point of inception to March 2019. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed each study’s risk of bias, while the GRADE approach judged the overall evidence for each review outcome. A meta‐analysis was conducted using the random‐effect model to obtain standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals under the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistic and Cochran’s Q chi‐squared test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Results A total of 24 studies (22 trials) were included in this review. Universal interventions were found to be effective in improving children’s body esteem, self‐esteem, and internalization of appearance ideals at postintervention and at follow‐up timepoints. Subgroup analyses found that girls benefited more from these interventions than boys. Multisessional interventions with an optimal duration of approximately one month were found to be more effective. Conclusions The findings encourage the incorporation of universal preventive interventions into school curricula to benefit most children. Laypeople such as teachers can deliver these interventions, but content experts should address topics on body dissatisfaction. Due to the low quality of evidence, as accorded by the GRADE approach, current findings should be validated by future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.13164

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chua, J. Y. X., Tam, W., & Shorey, S.
Affiliations
  • KK Women's and Children's Hospital (SG)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Shorey, Shefaly
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-11-19
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
522-535
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2991650875
Cited by
69
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Keywords
eating disorder prevention, body image, body esteem, self-esteem, internalization of appearance ideals, body dissatisfaction, children, school-based intervention, sex differences, intervention duration
MeSH terms
Body Dissatisfaction, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Body Image, Child, Curriculum, Humans, Schools

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review