Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42084084›Full record

ReviewThe International journal of eating disorders2026

Strategic Priorities for Advancing Eating Disorder Risk Reduction: A Narrative Review.

Hannah K Jarman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hannah K JarmanSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8225-4511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite decades of advances in treatment, eating disorders continue to impose substantial individual and societal burden, underscoring the need for earlier and more effective risk reduction. Prevention research has expanded considerably, producing a wide range of approaches that target modifiable risk factors, build individual coping skills, intervene within schools and families, leverage digital delivery formats, and, increasingly, consider policy and structural levers. Although many programs demonstrate small-to-moderate improvements in established risk factors, population-level impact has been limited. Effects are often modest, implementation is inconsistent, and scalability remains constrained. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary eating disorder risk reduction efforts across four interconnected dimensions that shape impact: mechanisms targeted, level of focus (from individual to population), personalization and cultural adaptation, and delivery and scalability. Across these domains, critical gaps emerge, including narrow mechanistic focus, imprecise risk stratification, underrepresentation of diverse populations, and limited integration of implementation science and economic and policy evaluation. This review argues that advancing eating disorder risk reduction requires a shift from efficacy-focused intervention development toward coordinated, multilevel, and implementation-informed strategies that prioritize precision, equity, system integration, and policy engagement. Such reorientation is essential if eating disorder risk reduction is to achieve meaningful and sustained population-level impact. Drawing on these findings, this review outlines a set of strategic priorities for advancing eating disorder risk reduction at scale.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersRisk Reduction BehaviorHumansRisk Factorseating disorderspreventionrisk reduction

Identifiers

PMID42084084
PMCPMC13536185

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.