Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
Michael P. Levine
PII: S1471-0153(16)30319-1
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.10.011
Reference: EATBEH 1127
Please cite this article as: Levine, M.P., Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A
Concept Analysis, Eating Behaviors (2016), doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.10.011
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 1
PT
Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
RI
Michael P. Levine*
SC
*Department of Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA
NU
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael P. Levine, Ph.D., Department of
MA
Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA 43022; email: Levine@kenyon.edu; phone:
740-507-9518.
D
P TE
CE
AC
Abstract
The definition of universal prevention is important for theoretical, research, and policy-
related reasons. The present article provides an etymological and historical look at the
PT
concept of universal prevention, in and of itself and in terms of its position on the mental
RI
health intervention spectrum involving mental health promotion, selective prevention,
SC
indicated prevention, case identification, and treatment. Following a summary of the
NU
fashioned into a family resemblance model for defining the construct. This model is applied
to four of the articles constituting the journal Eating Behaviors’ special issue on the
MA
universal prevention of eating disorders. It is argued that this family resemblance approach
D
captures the diversity of current universal approaches to reducing risk factors and/or
TE
preventing eating disorders. This type of definition, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014)
Key words: prevention; universal; mental health intervention spectrum; eating disorders;
Highlights
1. Universal prevention has been a complex, potentially confusing construct for over 30
years.
PT
2. Universal prevention is best understood as part of the Mental Health Intervention
RI
Spectrum.
SC
3. There are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for defining universal prevention.
NU
prevention.
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 4
PT
psychological health and prevent maladjustment than to struggle valiantly
RI
- Emory Cowen (1983, p. 14)
SC
In the past 15 to 20 years there has been significant progress in the components of
NU
eating disorders (EDs) prevention: clarification of risk factors design innovation
efficacy and effectiveness research program dissemination (Becker, Stice, Shaw, & Woda,
MA
2009; Wilksch, 2014). Nevertheless, it is still the case after well over 50 years that the
the relationship, if not the distinction, between prevention and treatment can be very
TE
Foxcroft, 2014; Levine & Smolak, 2006). For example, as noted by Foxcroft (2014, p. 820):
CE
universal-selective-indicated scheme.
Becker (2016) recently argued that the fields contributing to eating disorders
with community stakeholders, if we strive for greater conceptual and linguistic accuracy.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 5
“Universal prevention” is a concept (or construct) that cries out for this type of in depth
analysis. The rationale for universal prevention (the “why”) has been articulated in detail
elsewhere (Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008), and its efficacy,
PT
effectiveness, and dissemination are the subjects of many and varied reviews (see, e.g.,
RI
Levine, 2015a; Wilksch, 2014) and of this special issue. The present article analyzes the
SC
concept of universal prevention in order to provide a working definition that captures the
NU
The Roots of Universal Prevention: A Selective and Targeted Review
MA
Etymology
The English word prevention (n.d.) has its roots in late medieval Latin: prae (before)
D
+ venire [to come], which when combined as a transitive verb conveyed a sense of
TE
“anticipate to hinder.” As an adjective, universal [n.d.] has Latin roots at least 200 years
older: universalis, meaning "of or belonging to all" is derived from universus, symbolizing
P
CE
"all together, whole, entire.” Even this highly simplified examination of the etymology of
construct that focuses on “all” or an “entirety” in order to hinder a set of disorders (e.g.,
anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders) that are relatively rare (Keel &
Forney, 2015).
The etymology of universal prevention, like the declaration by Cowen (1983) that
introduces this article, reminds us that prevention is primary (Levine & Smolak, 2006,
2008). The formal distinction between primary and secondary prevention, which dates to a
1957 monograph by the Commonwealth Fund’s Commission on Chronic Illness (Mrazek &
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 6
Haggerty, 1994), was elaborated and widely disseminated through an influential book by
Caplan (1964). However, in 1983 Dr. Robert Gordon, a physician and special assistant to
the Director of the National Institutes of Health (USA), wrote a 3-page letter to the journal
PT
Public Health Reports that deftly outlined the conceptual and practical limits of the primary
RI
vs. secondary distinction (see also Cowen, 1983). Gordon (1983) argued for an improved
SC
categorization of prevention as universal or selective or indicated (these days, often
NU
according to Gordon, this typology is particularly useful in addressing disorders that are
MA
multifactorial in origin and that have a long and complex developmental trajectory.
of the population groups among which they are optimally used. The most
P
CE
desirable for everybody. In this category fall all those measures which can be
AC
advocated confidently for the general public and which, in many cases, can be
original)
Gordon (1983) added that universal prevention is likely to require different strategies than
selective or indicated prevention, and should be undertaken only when the costs are low
Medicine (IOM), have helped to refine, but not necessarily to validate, the theoretical
PT
construct of universal prevention (Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders
RI
[Committee on Prevention], 2009; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). In the latest edition, the
SC
Committee on Prevention (2009) continued to use Gordon’s (1983) pioneering work to
define universal prevention as “preventive interventions that are targeted to the general
NU
public or a whole population group that has not been identified on the basis of individual
MA
risk. The intervention is desirable for everyone in that group” [p. xxix]. This is contrasted
with selective prevention, which focuses on “individuals or [to] a subgroup of the population
D
than average” [p. xxviii]. Determination of significant risk—but not high risk—may be done
2009).
AC
program (e.g., Happy Being Me; Dunstan, Paxton, & McLean, in press), and imagine it is to
administered to all girls ages 11 through 14 years in the Los Angeles, California, region.
million people; Census Reporter, n.d) asymptomatic group who are at greater risk than
boys or younger girls because of gender roles, pubertal status, media pressures, etc.
Consequently, I would place this program between universal and selective on the IOM’s
In the more recent book the Committee on Prevention (2009) also used Mrazek and
spectrum of interventions, based on the size and nature of the group for whom
PT
programming is intended. As shown in Figure 1, according to the Committee on Prevention
RI
(2009) the mental health intervention spectrum ranges from general mental health
SC
promotion universal prevention selective prevention indicated prevention. The
latter overlaps with the older concept of secondary prevention (Caplan, 1964) and thus
NU
shades into the traditional steps of clinical treatment: case identification intervention
MA
aftercare. This spectrum maintains Gordon’s (1983) argument that (1) all people being
addressed by prevention are asymptomatic; (2) universal refers to the broadest scope in
D
the population; and (3) in contrast to indicated prevention, neither universal nor selective
TE
health promotion. In other words, universal prevention is closely related to broad efforts to
developmental competencies, effective coping, and other forms of resilience in the face of
inevitable stressors.
prevention. Incorporating the work of Gordon (1983) and the IOM (Committee on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 9
Prevention, 2009; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994), Foxcroft acknowledges the utility of a
classification system in which “universal prevention takes the form of a whole population
approach, where risk of developing a disease or disorder is typically diffuse and preventive
PT
interventions are not based on level of risk” (p. 819). Foxcroft adds that universal
RI
prevention will be most relevant when Rose’s prevention paradox is in effect and when the
SC
interventions are determined to be acceptable to the population (see also Haines & Filion,
2015).
NU
The Rose paradox is a statistical phenomenon at the heart of a population-based,
MA
public health approach to prevention (Austin, 2001; Haines & Filion, 2015). To illustrate, it
is reasonable to assume that (1) the point prevalence of bulimia nervosa (BN) in females 14
D
years or older is ~2.0% (Keel & Forney, 2015); (2) there is evidence that a risk factor such
TE
as dieting or internalization of the slender beauty ideal (Austin, 2001; Becker et al., in
press; Rohde, Stice, & Marti, 2015) is normally distributed in the population; (3) those
P
CE
females who are not symptomatic but at high risk are 6 times more likely to develop BN
than those at low to moderate risk, a very generous figure for relative risk (cf. Rohde et al.,
AC
2015); and (4) 10% of the population (e.g., those with z score on the risk factor of > +1.28)
ages 14 or greater, 7,800 cases (7.8% X 100,000) will emerge from the high risk-group,
while the comparable figure for the low-to-moderate-risk group is 11,700 (1.3% [i.e., 1/6
of 7.8%] X 900,000). In this instance the Rose paradox is that, although by definition the
high-risk group is at much higher risk, there are relatively very few people in this category.
Therefore, 11,700/[(.02 X 1,000,000) = 20,000] or the majority (58.5%) of the cases will
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 10
arise from the low-to-moderate risk group (Austin, 2001). This paradox indicates the need
According to Foxcroft (2014), universal prevention will often take the form of
PT
macrolevel “environmental” changes, such as laws and regulations, or community
RI
development efforts such as mass media campaigns or changes in the educational
SC
standards for K-12, all of which apply to the entire population. However, not all planned
changes in legislation and public policy are universal in their focus. For example they may
NU
direct attention to those participating in varsity athletics at the high school level.
MA
Foxcroft (2014) then distinguishes between three functions of prevention
issue (Austin, Yu, Tran, & Mayer, in press; Sánchez-Carracedo, Carretero, & Conesa,
The articles that form this special issue of Eating Behaviors demonstrate the wide
variety of approaches to which the category (or dimensional space on the Mental Health
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 11
Intervention Spectrum) of universal prevention can be applied. Based on this practice and
on the conceptual analysis above—and given that the set of “low(er) risk” girls ages 15
through 17 in Boston (USA) is at significantly higher risk than low-risk girls age 6 through 8
PT
in Boston and “low risk” girls age 15 through 17 in Kabul (Afghanistan)—it is likely
RI
impossible to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a categorization of
SC
universal prevention. Consequently, I believe universal prevention is a cognitive-linguistic
concept that, like “a game” or “a mental disorder,” is best understood and applied in terms
NU
of Wittgenstein’s idea of a family resemblance (Varga, 2011). In other words, there is no
MA
essential feature that all instances of universal prevention share, in contrast to, for example,
birds, all of which have feathers and are the only creatures with this characteristic. Rather,
D
as is the case with family similarities, two or more members of a family tend to have one—
TE
in which representative instances are held together by sets of overlapping similarities. This
categorization to “mental disorder.” However, the family resemblance model does not
The preceding review suggests there are nine features that determine the degree of
Prevention, 2009; Foxcroft, 2014; Gordon, 1983; Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak,
focuses on risk factors, and perhaps protective factors as well, that are diffusely and
PT
the population being addressed includes non-symptomatic people at varying
RI
degrees of risk, preferably including males
SC
designed to transform and strengthen public institutions and policies
NU
change normative cultural attitudes and practices
MA
adopts an ecological approach in which risk factor research, programming, and
evaluation unfold on multiple levels, such as mass media, family, athletics, school,
D
and peers.
TE
Table 1 presents the application of this family resemblance definition to four of the
studies comprising this special issue: Sánchez-Carracedo et al. (in press), from Spain;
Austin et al. (in press) from the USA; Becker et al. (in press) from the USA, England, and
Mexico; and Dunstan, Paxton, and McLean (in press) from Australia. Although it is
impractical in this conceptual analysis to consider all the studies in the special issue, these
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 13
four were selected for the following reasons. The population-based and policy-focused
collaborations described by Sánchez-Carracedo et al. (in press) and Austin et al. (in press)
are different and unique, but both are representative of a growing trend seen now in
PT
Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and Israel (see, e.g., Levine & McVey, 2015). The carefully
RI
conceived, multifaceted, multinational, and integrated dissemination projects described by
SC
Becker et al. (in press) have at their core the most successful risk factor reduction and
eating disorders prevention program to date, the Body Project, designed initially as
NU
selective and indicated prevention (see Figure 1) for late adolescent and young adult
MA
females in public school or college (Becker et al., 2009; Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak,
2006; Stice et al., 2013). And the Happy Being Me curriculum evaluated by Dunstan et al. (in
D
press) is representative of the nature and/or the potential of many intensive prevention
TE
programs for youth ages 11 through 14 (see Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008). Specifically,
Happy Being Me is implemented as a set of lessons for use in school classrooms, and it was
P
CE
initially designed for girls before being modified for delivery in a coeducational setting
Conclusions
detecting and treating individual instances once they have arisen. Prevention is a necessity
and a priority for the reducing the incidence of EDs and the prevalence and intensity of risk
factors (e.g., negative body image) that are destructive in and of themselves. As noted by
Foxcroft (2014), over 20 years ago the Institute of Medicine’s book (Mrazek & Haggerty,
1994) emphasized that: “…without a system for classifying specific intervention, there is no
way to obtain accurate information on the type or extent of current activities, …and no way to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 14
ensure that prevention researchers, practitioners, and policy makers are speaking the same
PT
prevention is complex. This approach resists, if not mocks, attempts to distill the essence of
RI
universal prevention into an easily digestible and reproducible summary sentence for a
SC
position paper, a press release, or a sound bite. Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the
right direction to apply a family resemblance analysis, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014) three
NU
categories of function, to the concept of universal prevention. Our field needs greater detail
MA
in conceptualizing and reporting the nature of universal prevention programs. This would
facilitate greater precision in evaluating claims about whether or not universal prevention
D
is effective (Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2008; Wilksch, 2014), and it would contribute
TE
to much-needed efforts to integrate universal, selective, indicated program with each other
and with health promotion and treatment (Levine & McVey, 2015).
P
CE
]
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 15
References
PT
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0797
RI
Austin, S. B., Yu, K., Tran, A., & Mayer, B. (in press). Research-to-policy translation for
SC
prevention of disordered weight and shape control behaviors: A case example
targeting dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building. Eating
NU
Behaviors.
MA
Becker, C. B. (2016). Our critics might have valid concerns: Reducing our propensity to
conflate. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 24, 79-89. DOI:
D
10.1080/10640266.2015.1113833
TE
Becker, C. B., Perez, M., Kilpela, L. S., Diedrichs, P. C., Trujillo, E., & Stice, E. (in press).
Becker, C. B., Plasencia, M., Kilpela, L. S., Briggs, M., & Stewart, T. (2014). Changing the
AC
course of comborbid eating disorders and depression: what is the role of public
Becker, C. B., Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Woda, S. (2009). Use of empirically supported
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.007
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0644000-los-angeles-ca/
PT
Children, Youth, and Young Adults [National Research Council & Institute of
RI
Medicine of the National Academies]. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional,
SC
and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities.
NU
Cowen, E. L. (1983). Primary prevention in mental health: Past, present, and future.
MA
In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive
psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 11-25). New York: Pergamon.
D
Dunstan, C. J., Paxton, S. J., & McLean, S. L. (in press). An evaluation of a body image
TE
10.1007/s11121-013-0435-1
Haines, J., & Filion, A. J. (2015). Why prevention? The case for upstream strategies. In L.
Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of eating disorders: Assessment,
prevention, treatment, policy, and future directions (Vol. 2, pp. 557-568). Sussex, UK:
Wiley Blackwell.
Keel, P. K., & Forney, K. J. (2015). Prevalence and incidence of eating disorders in Western
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 17
societies. In L. Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of eating disorders:
Basic concepts and foundational research (Vol. 1, pp. 53-63. Sussex, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
PT
Levine, M. P. (2015). Does prevention work (and is this even a fair question)? Gürze-
RI
Salucore Online Catalogue. Retrieved from
SC
http://www.edcatalogue.com/does-prevention-work/
Levine, M. P. (in press). The current status of eating disorder prevention research. In T. D.
NU
Wade (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feeding and eating disorders. Sydney: Springer Science
MA
and Business Media.
Levine, M. P., & McVey, G. L. (2015). Developing an ecological approach to eating disorders
D
prevention: The Ontario Project. In L. Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley
TE
Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2006). The prevention of eating problems and eating disorders:
Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2008). “What exactly are we waiting for?” The case for
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Marino, L. (1995). Mental disorder as a Roschian concept: A critique of
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Prevent
PT
Rohde, P., Stice, E., & Marti, C. N. (2015). Development and predictive effects of eating
RI
disorder risk factors during adolescence: Implications for prevention efforts.
SC
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48, 187-198. DOI: 10.1002/eat.22270
Sánchez-Carracedo, D., Carretero, C., & Conesa, A. (in press). Roundtable on the prevention
NU
of eating disorders: The Catalan Public Policy Initiative. Eating Behaviors.
MA
Stice, E., Becker, C. B., & Yokum, S. (2013). Eating disorder prevention: Current evidence-
base and future directions. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 478-485.
D
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22105.
TE
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Universal
P
CE
Varga, S. (2011). Defining mental disorder. Exploring the 'natural function' approach.
Wilksch, S. M. (2014). Where did universal eating disorder prevention go? Eating Disorders:
DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2013.864889
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 19
Footnotes
prevention. First, “indicated” is the adjective used by Gordon (1983) and by the Committee
PT
on Prevention (2009; see Figure 1). Second, use of “indicated” avoids confusion with the
RI
more general use of “targeted” as a verb, for example, in the Committee on Prevention’s
SC
(2009) glossary definition of universal prevention (see p. X of this article) or in a statement
such as “this selective intervention targeted adolescents who were at high-risk due to
NU
participation in gymnastics and long-distance running.” Third, continuing to use “targeted”
MA
as an adjective because certain high-risk groups are the “target” of the intervention
Table 1
PT
Issue on Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders
RI
Study in Eating Behaviors Special Issue
SC
Family Characteristic of Sánchez- Becker Austin Dunstan
Universal Prevention Carracedo et al. et al. et al. et al.
NU
Not exclusively selective
or indicated prevention Y Y Y Y
MA
Addresses extremely
large groups Y Y Y
D
Designed to transform
public institutions/policies Y Y
AC
Applies a developmental,
ecological model Y
Note. Y = Yes, this characteristic is present in the study. A blank space means that it is
either not present, or not reported in an easily discernible manner, in the study.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 21
PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC