- Email: [email protected]
Universal prevention of eating disorders: A concept analysis
Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis Michael P. Levine PII: DOI: Reference:
S1471-0153(16)30319-1 doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.10.011 EATBEH 1127
To appear in:
Eating Behaviors
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
PT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 1
SC
Michael P. Levine*
RI
Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
NU
*Department of Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA
MA
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael P. Levine, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA 43022; email: [email protected]; phone:
AC CE P
TE
D
740-507-9518.
Main text: 3,979 words
Abstract: 165 words
Tables: 1
RUNNING HEAD: CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION
Figures: 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 2 Abstract The definition of universal prevention is important for theoretical, research, and policy-
PT
related reasons. The present article provides an etymological and historical look at the
RI
concept of universal prevention, in and of itself and in terms of its position on the mental
SC
health intervention spectrum involving mental health promotion, selective prevention, indicated prevention, case identification, and treatment. Following a summary of the
NU
features commonly associated with universal prevention, these characteristics are fashioned into a family resemblance model for defining the construct. This model is applied
MA
to four of the articles constituting the journal Eating Behaviors’ special issue on the
D
universal prevention of eating disorders. It is argued that this family resemblance approach
TE
captures the diversity of current universal approaches to reducing risk factors and/or preventing eating disorders. This type of definition, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014)
AC CE P
tripartite functional analysis of universal prevention, has the potential to improve evaluations of universal prevention, as well as large-scale collaborative projects that seek to integrate programs across the mental health intervention spectrum.
Key words: prevention; universal; mental health intervention spectrum; eating disorders; family resemblance definition
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 3 Highlights 1. Universal prevention has been a complex, potentially confusing construct for over 30
PT
years.
RI
2. Universal prevention is best understood as part of the Mental Health Intervention
SC
Spectrum.
3. There are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for defining universal prevention.
NU
4. The family resemblance model is reasonable and practical in defining universal
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
prevention.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 4 Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
PT
It is more sensible, humane, pragmatic, and cost-effective to build
and compassionately to stay its awesome tide.
RI
psychological health and prevent maladjustment than to struggle valiantly
SC
- Emory Cowen (1983, p. 14)
NU
In the past 15 to 20 years there has been significant progress in the components of eating disorders (EDs) prevention: clarification of risk factors design innovation
MA
efficacy and effectiveness research program dissemination (Becker, Stice, Shaw, & Woda, 2009; Wilksch, 2014). Nevertheless, it is still the case after well over 50 years that the
D
definition of prevention, the categorization of prevention philosophies and programs, and
TE
the relationship, if not the distinction, between prevention and treatment can be very
AC CE P
challenging (Caplan, 1964; Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders, 2009; Foxcroft, 2014; Levine & Smolak, 2006). For example, as noted by Foxcroft (2014, p. 820): . . . whilst the universal-selective-indicated system for classifying prevention is a useful advance on previous notions of primary and secondary prevention, there remains some conceptual confusion about how environmental, community-based and individually oriented prevention approaches should be classified and how these different types of prevention relate to the universal-selective-indicated scheme. Becker (2016) recently argued that the fields contributing to eating disorders prevention will benefit greatly and reduce unproductive misunderstandings, particularly 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
PT
elsewhere (Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008), and its efficacy,
RI
effectiveness, and dissemination are the subjects of many and varied reviews (see, e.g.,
SC
Levine, 2015a; Wilksch, 2014) and of this special issue. The present article analyzes the concept of universal prevention in order to provide a working definition that captures the
NU
breadth and complexity of this important concept.
MA
The Roots of Universal Prevention: A Selective and Targeted Review Etymology
D
The English word prevention (n.d.) has its roots in late medieval Latin: prae (before)
TE
+ venire [to come], which when combined as a transitive verb conveyed a sense of “anticipate to hinder.” As an adjective, universal [n.d.] has Latin roots at least 200 years
AC CE P
older: universalis, meaning "of or belonging to all" is derived from universus, symbolizing "all together, whole, entire.” Even this highly simplified examination of the etymology of universal prevention highlights some of the challenges in understanding and applying a 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). Universal Prevention is Primary (1957 – 1983) 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
PT
the Director of the National Institutes of Health (USA), wrote a 3-page letter to the journal
RI
Public Health Reports that deftly outlined the conceptual and practical limits of the primary
SC
vs. secondary distinction (see also Cowen, 1983). Gordon (1983) argued for an improved categorization of prevention as universal or selective or indicated (these days, often
NU
referred to as “targeted”1). It is noteworthy in a consideration of eating disorders that,
MA
according to Gordon, this typology is particularly useful in addressing disorders that are multifactorial in origin and that have a long and complex developmental trajectory.
D
Gordon (1983) introduces his typology by stating that:
TE
Preventive measures—those which should be applied to persons not motivated by current suffering—can be operationally classified on the basis
AC CE P
of the population groups among which they are optimally used. The most generally applicable type, which we shall call universal, is a measure that is desirable for everybody. In this category fall all those measures which can be advocated confidently for the general public and which, in many cases, can be applied without professional advice or assistance. (p. 108; italics in the 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 and there are significant benefits for the population. The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 7 Two influential versions of a book, published 15 years apart by representatives of several US governmental agencies led by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of
PT
Medicine (IOM), have helped to refine, but not necessarily to validate, the theoretical
RI
construct of universal prevention (Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders
SC
[Committee on Prevention], 2009; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). In the latest edition, the Committee on Prevention (2009) continued to use Gordon’s (1983) pioneering work to
NU
define universal prevention as “preventive interventions that are targeted to the general
MA
public or a whole population group that has not been identified on the basis of individual risk. The intervention is desirable for everyone in that group” [p. xxix]. This is contrasted
D
with selective prevention, which focuses on “individuals or [to] a subgroup of the population
TE
whose risk of developing mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders is significantly higher than average” [p. xxviii]. Determination of significant risk—but not high risk—may be done
AC CE P
without screening, based on research pointing to biological, psychological, or sociocultural variables operating at the family, community, or cultural level (Committee on Prevention, 2009).
Consider a prototypical multi-lesson classroom-based eating disorders prevention 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. This prevention project focuses on a very large (N = ~80,000, or roughly 2% of nearly 4 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 spectrum (Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 8 In the more recent book the Committee on Prevention (2009) also used Mrazek and Haggerty’s (1994) transformation of Gordon’s tripartite categorization into a continuum or
PT
spectrum of interventions, based on the size and nature of the group for whom
RI
programming is intended. As shown in Figure 1, according to the Committee on Prevention
SC
(2009) the mental health intervention spectrum ranges from general mental health promotion universal prevention selective prevention indicated prevention. The
NU
latter overlaps with the older concept of secondary prevention (Caplan, 1964) and thus
MA
shades into the traditional steps of clinical treatment: case identification intervention aftercare. This spectrum maintains Gordon’s (1983) argument that (1) all people being
D
addressed by prevention are asymptomatic; (2) universal refers to the broadest scope in
TE
the population; and (3) in contrast to indicated prevention, neither universal nor selective prevention involve screening of any sort (Committee on Prevention, 2009).
AC CE P
Given that its ultimate goal is healthier development, prevention subsumes systematic efforts to protect health. Thus, it is noteworthy that the Committee on Prevention’s (2009) intervention spectrum juxtaposes universal prevention with mental health promotion. In other words, universal prevention is closely related to broad efforts to promote and develop assets in the physical environment, sociocultural groupings, individuals, and person-environment transactions, which together can foster developmental competencies, effective coping, and other forms of resilience in the face of inevitable stressors. Foxcroft’s (2014) Functional Analysis Foxcroft (2014) provides an in depth examination of the meanings of universal 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
PT
approach, where risk of developing a disease or disorder is typically diffuse and preventive
RI
interventions are not based on level of risk” (p. 819). Foxcroft adds that universal
SC
prevention will be most relevant when Rose’s prevention paradox is in effect and when the interventions are determined to be acceptable to the population (see also Haines & Filion,
NU
2015).
MA
The Rose paradox is a statistical phenomenon at the heart of a population-based, public health approach to prevention (Austin, 2001; Haines & Filion, 2015). To illustrate, it
D
is reasonable to assume that (1) the point prevalence of bulimia nervosa (BN) in females 14
TE
years or older is ~2.0% (Keel & Forney, 2015); (2) there is evidence that a risk factor such as dieting or internalization of the slender beauty ideal (Austin, 2001; Becker et al., in
AC CE P
press; Rohde, Stice, & Marti, 2015) is normally distributed in the population; (3) those 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., 2015); and (4) 10% of the population (e.g., those with z score on the risk factor of > +1.28) is at high risk. Given these parameters, in a hypothetical population of 1,000,000 females 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 for a significant shift downward in the population’s risk.
PT
According to Foxcroft (2014), universal prevention will often take the form of
RI
macrolevel “environmental” changes, such as laws and regulations, or community
SC
development efforts such as mass media campaigns or changes in the educational standards for K-12, all of which apply to the entire population. However, not all planned
NU
changes in legislation and public policy are universal in their focus. For example they may
MA
direct attention to those participating in varsity athletics at the high school level. Foxcroft (2014) then distinguishes between three functions of prevention
D
efforts – environmental, developmental (including positive assets in the
TE
transactional sense), and informational. Briefly, universal programs with an environmental purpose are designed to reduce the opportunities to engage in
AC CE P
unhealthy behaviors. Universal programs with a developmental function are designed to promote psychosocial maturation in ways that increase resistance to unhealthy influences. The third functional category consists of universal programs provide information in order to improve awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about unhealthy beliefs and behaviors. As demonstrated by several articles in this special issue (Austin, Yu, Tran, & Mayer, in press; Sánchez-Carracedo, Carretero, & Conesa, in press), universal programs with environmental and/or informational functions could be implemented at various levels – local, regional, national. Universal Prevention and the Family Resemblance Model 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
PT
through 17 in Boston (USA) is at significantly higher risk than low-risk girls age 6 through 8
RI
in Boston and “low risk” girls age 15 through 17 in Kabul (Afghanistan)—it is likely
SC
impossible to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a categorization of universal prevention. Consequently, I believe universal prevention is a cognitive-linguistic
NU
concept that, like “a game” or “a mental disorder,” is best understood and applied in terms
MA
of Wittgenstein’s idea of a family resemblance (Varga, 2011). In other words, there is no essential feature that all instances of universal prevention share, in contrast to, for example,
D
birds, all of which have feathers and are the only creatures with this characteristic. Rather,
TE
as is the case with family similarities, two or more members of a family tend to have one— and often several—things in common. More precisely, defining universal prevention in
AC CE P
terms of family resemblance acknowledges that it is a superordinate, polythetic construct in which representative instances are held together by sets of overlapping similarities. This approach is related to Lilienfeld and Marino’s (1995) application of a Roschian categorization to “mental disorder.” However, the family resemblance model does not presume that categorization of an intervention as universal prevention is dependent on the program’s degree of similarity to a single prototype of universal prevention (Varga, 2011). The preceding review suggests there are nine features that determine the degree of resemblance to the “family” concept of universal prevention (Austin, 2015; Committee on Prevention, 2009; Foxcroft, 2014; Gordon, 1983; Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2006; Wilksch, 2014):
Clearly not exclusively selective or indicated in nature
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 12 addresses, or is at least intended eventually for, extremely large groups
focuses on risk factors, and perhaps protective factors as well, that are diffusely and more or less normally distributed in the population
the population being addressed includes non-symptomatic people at varying
RI
PT
SC
degrees of risk, preferably including males
designed to transform and strengthen public institutions and policies
involves media campaigns and/or other large group interventions designed to
NU
MA
change normative cultural attitudes and practices adopts an ecological approach in which risk factor research, programming, and
D
evaluation unfold on multiple levels, such as mass media, family, athletics, school,
focuses on reducing those risk factors—and on promoting those protective
AC CE P
TE
and peers.
factors—that are likely to increase the probability of preventing multiple (sometimes comorbid) health outcomes, such as depression, eating disorders, and the abuse of cigarettes and other substances.
designed with input from various community stakeholders to be acceptable to the public, workable for policy makers, practical, and cost-effective in its implementation and dissemination. 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)
PT
are different and unique, but both are representative of a growing trend seen now in
RI
Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and Israel (see, e.g., Levine & McVey, 2015). The carefully
SC
conceived, multifaceted, multinational, and integrated dissemination projects described by Becker et al. (in press) have at their core the most successful risk factor reduction and
NU
eating disorders prevention program to date, the Body Project, designed initially as
MA
selective and indicated prevention (see Figure 1) for late adolescent and young adult females in public school or college (Becker et al., 2009; Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak,
D
2006; Stice et al., 2013). And the Happy Being Me curriculum evaluated by Dunstan et al. (in
TE
press) is representative of the nature and/or the potential of many intensive prevention programs for youth ages 11 through 14 (see Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008). Specifically,
AC CE P
Happy Being Me is implemented as a set of lessons for use in school classrooms, and it was initially designed for girls before being modified for delivery in a coeducational setting (Dunstan et al., in press).
Conclusions
No disease or disorder has ever been eliminated or even significantly reduced by 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 language” (p. 24; italics in the original).
PT
There is no doubt that a family resemblance definition of the concept of universal
RI
prevention is complex. This approach resists, if not mocks, attempts to distill the essence of
SC
universal prevention into an easily digestible and reproducible summary sentence for a position paper, a press release, or a sound bite. Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the
NU
right direction to apply a family resemblance analysis, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014) three
MA
categories of function, to the concept of universal prevention. Our field needs greater detail in conceptualizing and reporting the nature of universal prevention programs. This would
D
facilitate greater precision in evaluating claims about whether or not universal prevention
TE
is effective (Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2008; Wilksch, 2014), and it would contribute to much-needed efforts to integrate universal, selective, indicated program with each other
]
AC CE P
and with health promotion and treatment (Levine & McVey, 2015).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 15 References Austin, S. B. (2001). Population-based prevention of eating disorders: An application of the
PT
Rose prevention model. Preventive Medicine, 32, 268–283.
RI
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0797
SC
Austin, S. B., Yu, K., Tran, A., & Mayer, B. (in press). Research-to-policy translation for prevention of disordered weight and shape control behaviors: A case example
NU
targeting dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building. Eating
MA
Behaviors.
Becker, C. B. (2016). Our critics might have valid concerns: Reducing our propensity to
D
conflate. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 24, 79-89. DOI:
TE
10.1080/10640266.2015.1113833 Becker, C. B., Perez, M., Kilpela, L. S., Diedrichs, P. C., Trujillo, E., & Stice, E. (in press).
AC CE P
Engaging stakeholder communities as body image intervention partners: The Body Project as a case example. Eating Behaviors. Becker, C. B., Plasencia, M., Kilpela, L. S., Briggs, M., & Stewart, T. (2014). Changing the course of comborbid eating disorders and depression: what is the role of public health interventions in targeting shared risk factors. Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 114. Retrieved from http://www.jeatdisord.com/content/2/1/15 Becker, C. B., Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Woda, S. (2009). Use of empirically supported interventions for psychopathology: Can the participatory approach move us beyond the research-to-practice gap? Behaviour Research and Therapy 47, 265-274. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.007 Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 16 Census Reporter (n.d.). Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0644000-los-angeles-ca/
PT
Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among
RI
Children, Youth, and Young Adults [National Research Council & Institute of
SC
Medicine of the National Academies]. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities.
NU
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
MA
Cowen, E. L. (1983). Primary prevention in mental health: Past, present, and future. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive
D
psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 11-25). New York: Pergamon.
TE
Dunstan, C. J., Paxton, S. J., & McLean, S. L. (in press). An evaluation of a body image intervention in adolescent girls delivered in single-sex versus co-educational
AC CE P
classroom settings. Eating Behaviors. Foxcroft, D. R. (2014). Can prevention classification be improved by considering the function of prevention? Prevention Science, 15, 818–822. DOI 10.1007/s11121-013-0435-1 Gordon, R. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 98, 107-109. 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
PT
Blackwell.
RI
Levine, M. P. (2015). Does prevention work (and is this even a fair question)? Gürze-
SC
Salucore Online Catalogue. Retrieved from
http://www.edcatalogue.com/does-prevention-work/
NU
Levine, M. P. (in press). The current status of eating disorder prevention research. In T. D.
MA
Wade (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feeding and eating disorders. Sydney: Springer Science and Business Media.
D
Levine, M. P., & McVey, G. L. (2015). Developing an ecological approach to eating disorders
TE
prevention: The Ontario Project. In L. Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of eating disorders: Assessment, prevention, treatment, policy, and future
AC CE P
directions (Vol. 2, pp. 639-654). Sussex, UK: John Wiley. Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2006). The prevention of eating problems and eating disorders: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2008). “What exactly are we waiting for?” The case for universal-selective eating disorders prevention programs. International Journal of Child & Adolescent Health, 1, 295-304. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Marino, L. (1995). Mental disorder as a Roschian concept: A critique of Wakefield's "harmful dysfunction" analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 411-420. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.104.3.411 Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for prevention intervention research (report of the Institute of Medicine’s Committee
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 18 on Prevention of Mental Disorders). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Prevention. [n.d.] In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from
PT
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Prevent
RI
Rohde, P., Stice, E., & Marti, C. N. (2015). Development and predictive effects of eating
SC
disorder risk factors during adolescence: Implications for prevention efforts. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48, 187-198. DOI: 10.1002/eat.22270
NU
Sánchez-Carracedo, D., Carretero, C., & Conesa, A. (in press). Roundtable on the prevention
MA
of eating disorders: The Catalan Public Policy Initiative. Eating Behaviors. Stice, E., Becker, C. B., & Yokum, S. (2013). Eating disorder prevention: Current evidence-
TE
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22105.
D
base and future directions. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 478-485.
Universal. (n.d.). In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from
AC CE P
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Universal Varga, S. (2011). Defining mental disorder. Exploring the 'natural function' approach. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6:1. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-6-1 Wilksch, S. M. (2014). Where did universal eating disorder prevention go? Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 22, 184-192. DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2013.864889
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 19 Footnotes 1For
three reasons “indicated” is preferable to the commonly used “targeted”
PT
prevention. First, “indicated” is the adjective used by Gordon (1983) and by the Committee
RI
on Prevention (2009; see Figure 1). Second, use of “indicated” avoids confusion with the
SC
more general use of “targeted” as a verb, for example, in the Committee on Prevention’s (2009) glossary definition of universal prevention (see p. X of this article) or in a statement
NU
such as “this selective intervention targeted adolescents who were at high-risk due to
MA
participation in gymnastics and long-distance running.” Third, continuing to use “targeted” as an adjective because certain high-risk groups are the “target” of the intervention
D
introduces or reinforces an undesirable psychological distance between prevention experts
AC CE P
TE
and the participants as stakeholders in the program.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 20 Table 1
PT
Application of a Family Resemblance Definition to a Sample of Studies in Eating Behaviors’ Special
RI
Issue on Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders
SánchezCarracedo et al.
Not exclusively selective or indicated prevention
Y
MA
Addresses extremely large groups
AC CE P
TE
D
Y
Focuses on risk factor(s) with diffuse distribution in population Intended for asymptomatic people in mixed-risk groups
NU
Family Characteristic of Universal Prevention
SC
Study in Eating Behaviors Special Issue Becker et al.
Austin et al.
Dunstan et al.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Designed to transform public institutions/policies
Y
Y
Seeks to change normative cultural attitudes & practices
Y
Y
Applies a developmental, ecological model Targets risk & protective factors relevant to multiple disorders Designed to be workable, practical, & cost-effective for policy makers, implementation, & dissemination
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y 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
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Figure 1. The Committee on Prevention’s (2009) Mental Health Intervention Spectrum
S1471-0153(16)30319-1 doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.10.011 EATBEH 1127
To appear in:
Eating Behaviors
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
PT
CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 1
SC
Michael P. Levine*
RI
Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
NU
*Department of Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA
MA
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael P. Levine, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA 43022; email: [email protected]; phone:
AC CE P
TE
D
740-507-9518.
Main text: 3,979 words
Abstract: 165 words
Tables: 1
RUNNING HEAD: CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION
Figures: 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 2 Abstract The definition of universal prevention is important for theoretical, research, and policy-
PT
related reasons. The present article provides an etymological and historical look at the
RI
concept of universal prevention, in and of itself and in terms of its position on the mental
SC
health intervention spectrum involving mental health promotion, selective prevention, indicated prevention, case identification, and treatment. Following a summary of the
NU
features commonly associated with universal prevention, these characteristics are fashioned into a family resemblance model for defining the construct. This model is applied
MA
to four of the articles constituting the journal Eating Behaviors’ special issue on the
D
universal prevention of eating disorders. It is argued that this family resemblance approach
TE
captures the diversity of current universal approaches to reducing risk factors and/or preventing eating disorders. This type of definition, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014)
AC CE P
tripartite functional analysis of universal prevention, has the potential to improve evaluations of universal prevention, as well as large-scale collaborative projects that seek to integrate programs across the mental health intervention spectrum.
Key words: prevention; universal; mental health intervention spectrum; eating disorders; family resemblance definition
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 3 Highlights 1. Universal prevention has been a complex, potentially confusing construct for over 30
PT
years.
RI
2. Universal prevention is best understood as part of the Mental Health Intervention
SC
Spectrum.
3. There are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for defining universal prevention.
NU
4. The family resemblance model is reasonable and practical in defining universal
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
prevention.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 4 Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders: A Concept Analysis
PT
It is more sensible, humane, pragmatic, and cost-effective to build
and compassionately to stay its awesome tide.
RI
psychological health and prevent maladjustment than to struggle valiantly
SC
- Emory Cowen (1983, p. 14)
NU
In the past 15 to 20 years there has been significant progress in the components of eating disorders (EDs) prevention: clarification of risk factors design innovation
MA
efficacy and effectiveness research program dissemination (Becker, Stice, Shaw, & Woda, 2009; Wilksch, 2014). Nevertheless, it is still the case after well over 50 years that the
D
definition of prevention, the categorization of prevention philosophies and programs, and
TE
the relationship, if not the distinction, between prevention and treatment can be very
AC CE P
challenging (Caplan, 1964; Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders, 2009; Foxcroft, 2014; Levine & Smolak, 2006). For example, as noted by Foxcroft (2014, p. 820): . . . whilst the universal-selective-indicated system for classifying prevention is a useful advance on previous notions of primary and secondary prevention, there remains some conceptual confusion about how environmental, community-based and individually oriented prevention approaches should be classified and how these different types of prevention relate to the universal-selective-indicated scheme. Becker (2016) recently argued that the fields contributing to eating disorders prevention will benefit greatly and reduce unproductive misunderstandings, particularly 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
PT
elsewhere (Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008), and its efficacy,
RI
effectiveness, and dissemination are the subjects of many and varied reviews (see, e.g.,
SC
Levine, 2015a; Wilksch, 2014) and of this special issue. The present article analyzes the concept of universal prevention in order to provide a working definition that captures the
NU
breadth and complexity of this important concept.
MA
The Roots of Universal Prevention: A Selective and Targeted Review Etymology
D
The English word prevention (n.d.) has its roots in late medieval Latin: prae (before)
TE
+ venire [to come], which when combined as a transitive verb conveyed a sense of “anticipate to hinder.” As an adjective, universal [n.d.] has Latin roots at least 200 years
AC CE P
older: universalis, meaning "of or belonging to all" is derived from universus, symbolizing "all together, whole, entire.” Even this highly simplified examination of the etymology of universal prevention highlights some of the challenges in understanding and applying a 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). Universal Prevention is Primary (1957 – 1983) 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
PT
the Director of the National Institutes of Health (USA), wrote a 3-page letter to the journal
RI
Public Health Reports that deftly outlined the conceptual and practical limits of the primary
SC
vs. secondary distinction (see also Cowen, 1983). Gordon (1983) argued for an improved categorization of prevention as universal or selective or indicated (these days, often
NU
referred to as “targeted”1). It is noteworthy in a consideration of eating disorders that,
MA
according to Gordon, this typology is particularly useful in addressing disorders that are multifactorial in origin and that have a long and complex developmental trajectory.
D
Gordon (1983) introduces his typology by stating that:
TE
Preventive measures—those which should be applied to persons not motivated by current suffering—can be operationally classified on the basis
AC CE P
of the population groups among which they are optimally used. The most generally applicable type, which we shall call universal, is a measure that is desirable for everybody. In this category fall all those measures which can be advocated confidently for the general public and which, in many cases, can be applied without professional advice or assistance. (p. 108; italics in the 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 and there are significant benefits for the population. The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 7 Two influential versions of a book, published 15 years apart by representatives of several US governmental agencies led by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of
PT
Medicine (IOM), have helped to refine, but not necessarily to validate, the theoretical
RI
construct of universal prevention (Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders
SC
[Committee on Prevention], 2009; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). In the latest edition, the Committee on Prevention (2009) continued to use Gordon’s (1983) pioneering work to
NU
define universal prevention as “preventive interventions that are targeted to the general
MA
public or a whole population group that has not been identified on the basis of individual risk. The intervention is desirable for everyone in that group” [p. xxix]. This is contrasted
D
with selective prevention, which focuses on “individuals or [to] a subgroup of the population
TE
whose risk of developing mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders is significantly higher than average” [p. xxviii]. Determination of significant risk—but not high risk—may be done
AC CE P
without screening, based on research pointing to biological, psychological, or sociocultural variables operating at the family, community, or cultural level (Committee on Prevention, 2009).
Consider a prototypical multi-lesson classroom-based eating disorders prevention 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. This prevention project focuses on a very large (N = ~80,000, or roughly 2% of nearly 4 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 spectrum (Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 8 In the more recent book the Committee on Prevention (2009) also used Mrazek and Haggerty’s (1994) transformation of Gordon’s tripartite categorization into a continuum or
PT
spectrum of interventions, based on the size and nature of the group for whom
RI
programming is intended. As shown in Figure 1, according to the Committee on Prevention
SC
(2009) the mental health intervention spectrum ranges from general mental health promotion universal prevention selective prevention indicated prevention. The
NU
latter overlaps with the older concept of secondary prevention (Caplan, 1964) and thus
MA
shades into the traditional steps of clinical treatment: case identification intervention aftercare. This spectrum maintains Gordon’s (1983) argument that (1) all people being
D
addressed by prevention are asymptomatic; (2) universal refers to the broadest scope in
TE
the population; and (3) in contrast to indicated prevention, neither universal nor selective prevention involve screening of any sort (Committee on Prevention, 2009).
AC CE P
Given that its ultimate goal is healthier development, prevention subsumes systematic efforts to protect health. Thus, it is noteworthy that the Committee on Prevention’s (2009) intervention spectrum juxtaposes universal prevention with mental health promotion. In other words, universal prevention is closely related to broad efforts to promote and develop assets in the physical environment, sociocultural groupings, individuals, and person-environment transactions, which together can foster developmental competencies, effective coping, and other forms of resilience in the face of inevitable stressors. Foxcroft’s (2014) Functional Analysis Foxcroft (2014) provides an in depth examination of the meanings of universal 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
PT
approach, where risk of developing a disease or disorder is typically diffuse and preventive
RI
interventions are not based on level of risk” (p. 819). Foxcroft adds that universal
SC
prevention will be most relevant when Rose’s prevention paradox is in effect and when the interventions are determined to be acceptable to the population (see also Haines & Filion,
NU
2015).
MA
The Rose paradox is a statistical phenomenon at the heart of a population-based, public health approach to prevention (Austin, 2001; Haines & Filion, 2015). To illustrate, it
D
is reasonable to assume that (1) the point prevalence of bulimia nervosa (BN) in females 14
TE
years or older is ~2.0% (Keel & Forney, 2015); (2) there is evidence that a risk factor such as dieting or internalization of the slender beauty ideal (Austin, 2001; Becker et al., in
AC CE P
press; Rohde, Stice, & Marti, 2015) is normally distributed in the population; (3) those 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., 2015); and (4) 10% of the population (e.g., those with z score on the risk factor of > +1.28) is at high risk. Given these parameters, in a hypothetical population of 1,000,000 females 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 for a significant shift downward in the population’s risk.
PT
According to Foxcroft (2014), universal prevention will often take the form of
RI
macrolevel “environmental” changes, such as laws and regulations, or community
SC
development efforts such as mass media campaigns or changes in the educational standards for K-12, all of which apply to the entire population. However, not all planned
NU
changes in legislation and public policy are universal in their focus. For example they may
MA
direct attention to those participating in varsity athletics at the high school level. Foxcroft (2014) then distinguishes between three functions of prevention
D
efforts – environmental, developmental (including positive assets in the
TE
transactional sense), and informational. Briefly, universal programs with an environmental purpose are designed to reduce the opportunities to engage in
AC CE P
unhealthy behaviors. Universal programs with a developmental function are designed to promote psychosocial maturation in ways that increase resistance to unhealthy influences. The third functional category consists of universal programs provide information in order to improve awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about unhealthy beliefs and behaviors. As demonstrated by several articles in this special issue (Austin, Yu, Tran, & Mayer, in press; Sánchez-Carracedo, Carretero, & Conesa, in press), universal programs with environmental and/or informational functions could be implemented at various levels – local, regional, national. Universal Prevention and the Family Resemblance Model 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
PT
through 17 in Boston (USA) is at significantly higher risk than low-risk girls age 6 through 8
RI
in Boston and “low risk” girls age 15 through 17 in Kabul (Afghanistan)—it is likely
SC
impossible to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a categorization of universal prevention. Consequently, I believe universal prevention is a cognitive-linguistic
NU
concept that, like “a game” or “a mental disorder,” is best understood and applied in terms
MA
of Wittgenstein’s idea of a family resemblance (Varga, 2011). In other words, there is no essential feature that all instances of universal prevention share, in contrast to, for example,
D
birds, all of which have feathers and are the only creatures with this characteristic. Rather,
TE
as is the case with family similarities, two or more members of a family tend to have one— and often several—things in common. More precisely, defining universal prevention in
AC CE P
terms of family resemblance acknowledges that it is a superordinate, polythetic construct in which representative instances are held together by sets of overlapping similarities. This approach is related to Lilienfeld and Marino’s (1995) application of a Roschian categorization to “mental disorder.” However, the family resemblance model does not presume that categorization of an intervention as universal prevention is dependent on the program’s degree of similarity to a single prototype of universal prevention (Varga, 2011). The preceding review suggests there are nine features that determine the degree of resemblance to the “family” concept of universal prevention (Austin, 2015; Committee on Prevention, 2009; Foxcroft, 2014; Gordon, 1983; Haines & Filion, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2006; Wilksch, 2014):
Clearly not exclusively selective or indicated in nature
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 12 addresses, or is at least intended eventually for, extremely large groups
focuses on risk factors, and perhaps protective factors as well, that are diffusely and more or less normally distributed in the population
the population being addressed includes non-symptomatic people at varying
RI
PT
SC
degrees of risk, preferably including males
designed to transform and strengthen public institutions and policies
involves media campaigns and/or other large group interventions designed to
NU
MA
change normative cultural attitudes and practices adopts an ecological approach in which risk factor research, programming, and
D
evaluation unfold on multiple levels, such as mass media, family, athletics, school,
focuses on reducing those risk factors—and on promoting those protective
AC CE P
TE
and peers.
factors—that are likely to increase the probability of preventing multiple (sometimes comorbid) health outcomes, such as depression, eating disorders, and the abuse of cigarettes and other substances.
designed with input from various community stakeholders to be acceptable to the public, workable for policy makers, practical, and cost-effective in its implementation and dissemination. 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)
PT
are different and unique, but both are representative of a growing trend seen now in
RI
Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and Israel (see, e.g., Levine & McVey, 2015). The carefully
SC
conceived, multifaceted, multinational, and integrated dissemination projects described by Becker et al. (in press) have at their core the most successful risk factor reduction and
NU
eating disorders prevention program to date, the Body Project, designed initially as
MA
selective and indicated prevention (see Figure 1) for late adolescent and young adult females in public school or college (Becker et al., 2009; Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak,
D
2006; Stice et al., 2013). And the Happy Being Me curriculum evaluated by Dunstan et al. (in
TE
press) is representative of the nature and/or the potential of many intensive prevention programs for youth ages 11 through 14 (see Levine & Smolak, 2006, 2008). Specifically,
AC CE P
Happy Being Me is implemented as a set of lessons for use in school classrooms, and it was initially designed for girls before being modified for delivery in a coeducational setting (Dunstan et al., in press).
Conclusions
No disease or disorder has ever been eliminated or even significantly reduced by 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 language” (p. 24; italics in the original).
PT
There is no doubt that a family resemblance definition of the concept of universal
RI
prevention is complex. This approach resists, if not mocks, attempts to distill the essence of
SC
universal prevention into an easily digestible and reproducible summary sentence for a position paper, a press release, or a sound bite. Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the
NU
right direction to apply a family resemblance analysis, coupled with Foxcroft’s (2014) three
MA
categories of function, to the concept of universal prevention. Our field needs greater detail in conceptualizing and reporting the nature of universal prevention programs. This would
D
facilitate greater precision in evaluating claims about whether or not universal prevention
TE
is effective (Levine, 2015; Levine & Smolak, 2008; Wilksch, 2014), and it would contribute to much-needed efforts to integrate universal, selective, indicated program with each other
]
AC CE P
and with health promotion and treatment (Levine & McVey, 2015).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 15 References Austin, S. B. (2001). Population-based prevention of eating disorders: An application of the
PT
Rose prevention model. Preventive Medicine, 32, 268–283.
RI
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0797
SC
Austin, S. B., Yu, K., Tran, A., & Mayer, B. (in press). Research-to-policy translation for prevention of disordered weight and shape control behaviors: A case example
NU
targeting dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building. Eating
MA
Behaviors.
Becker, C. B. (2016). Our critics might have valid concerns: Reducing our propensity to
D
conflate. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 24, 79-89. DOI:
TE
10.1080/10640266.2015.1113833 Becker, C. B., Perez, M., Kilpela, L. S., Diedrichs, P. C., Trujillo, E., & Stice, E. (in press).
AC CE P
Engaging stakeholder communities as body image intervention partners: The Body Project as a case example. Eating Behaviors. Becker, C. B., Plasencia, M., Kilpela, L. S., Briggs, M., & Stewart, T. (2014). Changing the course of comborbid eating disorders and depression: what is the role of public health interventions in targeting shared risk factors. Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 114. Retrieved from http://www.jeatdisord.com/content/2/1/15 Becker, C. B., Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Woda, S. (2009). Use of empirically supported interventions for psychopathology: Can the participatory approach move us beyond the research-to-practice gap? Behaviour Research and Therapy 47, 265-274. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.007 Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 16 Census Reporter (n.d.). Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0644000-los-angeles-ca/
PT
Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among
RI
Children, Youth, and Young Adults [National Research Council & Institute of
SC
Medicine of the National Academies]. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities.
NU
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
MA
Cowen, E. L. (1983). Primary prevention in mental health: Past, present, and future. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive
D
psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 11-25). New York: Pergamon.
TE
Dunstan, C. J., Paxton, S. J., & McLean, S. L. (in press). An evaluation of a body image intervention in adolescent girls delivered in single-sex versus co-educational
AC CE P
classroom settings. Eating Behaviors. Foxcroft, D. R. (2014). Can prevention classification be improved by considering the function of prevention? Prevention Science, 15, 818–822. DOI 10.1007/s11121-013-0435-1 Gordon, R. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 98, 107-109. 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
PT
Blackwell.
RI
Levine, M. P. (2015). Does prevention work (and is this even a fair question)? Gürze-
SC
Salucore Online Catalogue. Retrieved from
http://www.edcatalogue.com/does-prevention-work/
NU
Levine, M. P. (in press). The current status of eating disorder prevention research. In T. D.
MA
Wade (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feeding and eating disorders. Sydney: Springer Science and Business Media.
D
Levine, M. P., & McVey, G. L. (2015). Developing an ecological approach to eating disorders
TE
prevention: The Ontario Project. In L. Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of eating disorders: Assessment, prevention, treatment, policy, and future
AC CE P
directions (Vol. 2, pp. 639-654). Sussex, UK: John Wiley. Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2006). The prevention of eating problems and eating disorders: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (2008). “What exactly are we waiting for?” The case for universal-selective eating disorders prevention programs. International Journal of Child & Adolescent Health, 1, 295-304. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Marino, L. (1995). Mental disorder as a Roschian concept: A critique of Wakefield's "harmful dysfunction" analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 411-420. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.104.3.411 Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for prevention intervention research (report of the Institute of Medicine’s Committee
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 18 on Prevention of Mental Disorders). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Prevention. [n.d.] In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from
PT
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Prevent
RI
Rohde, P., Stice, E., & Marti, C. N. (2015). Development and predictive effects of eating
SC
disorder risk factors during adolescence: Implications for prevention efforts. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48, 187-198. DOI: 10.1002/eat.22270
NU
Sánchez-Carracedo, D., Carretero, C., & Conesa, A. (in press). Roundtable on the prevention
MA
of eating disorders: The Catalan Public Policy Initiative. Eating Behaviors. Stice, E., Becker, C. B., & Yokum, S. (2013). Eating disorder prevention: Current evidence-
TE
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22105.
D
base and future directions. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 478-485.
Universal. (n.d.). In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from
AC CE P
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Universal Varga, S. (2011). Defining mental disorder. Exploring the 'natural function' approach. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6:1. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-6-1 Wilksch, S. M. (2014). Where did universal eating disorder prevention go? Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 22, 184-192. DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2013.864889
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 19 Footnotes 1For
three reasons “indicated” is preferable to the commonly used “targeted”
PT
prevention. First, “indicated” is the adjective used by Gordon (1983) and by the Committee
RI
on Prevention (2009; see Figure 1). Second, use of “indicated” avoids confusion with the
SC
more general use of “targeted” as a verb, for example, in the Committee on Prevention’s (2009) glossary definition of universal prevention (see p. X of this article) or in a statement
NU
such as “this selective intervention targeted adolescents who were at high-risk due to
MA
participation in gymnastics and long-distance running.” Third, continuing to use “targeted” as an adjective because certain high-risk groups are the “target” of the intervention
D
introduces or reinforces an undesirable psychological distance between prevention experts
AC CE P
TE
and the participants as stakeholders in the program.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL PREVENTION 20 Table 1
PT
Application of a Family Resemblance Definition to a Sample of Studies in Eating Behaviors’ Special
RI
Issue on Universal Prevention of Eating Disorders
SánchezCarracedo et al.
Not exclusively selective or indicated prevention
Y
MA
Addresses extremely large groups
AC CE P
TE
D
Y
Focuses on risk factor(s) with diffuse distribution in population Intended for asymptomatic people in mixed-risk groups
NU
Family Characteristic of Universal Prevention
SC
Study in Eating Behaviors Special Issue Becker et al.
Austin et al.
Dunstan et al.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Designed to transform public institutions/policies
Y
Y
Seeks to change normative cultural attitudes & practices
Y
Y
Applies a developmental, ecological model Targets risk & protective factors relevant to multiple disorders Designed to be workable, practical, & cost-effective for policy makers, implementation, & dissemination
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y 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
AC CE P
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Figure 1. The Committee on Prevention’s (2009) Mental Health Intervention Spectrum