(PS8-B32) U.S. Health Professionals’ Opinions of Orthorexia Nervosa

Orthorexia Nervosa (ON) is a proposed novel diagnosis capturing a pathological obsession with eating healthy food and has received increased attention over the last two decades. Ongoing debate about the utility of ON as a unique diagnosis within the broader category of eating disorders (EDs) impedes research on diagnostic criteria, prevalence rates, and clinical correlates of the condition. An important contribution to this debate is opinions of health professionals with experience working with EDs. While recent studies have examined professionals’ opinions outside of the U.S., knowledge of U.S health professionals’ opinions on this matter is lacking. The current study surveyed 100 health professionals with experience working clinically with EDs, including trainees (graduate students and post-baccalaureate researchers), Ph.D. psychologists, social workers and Master’s level clinicians, and medical health professionals (Medical Doctors, Registered Dieticians, Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, Psychiatrists, and Nurse Practitioners). Similar to studies previously conducted in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, a majority of the health professionals surveyed here (74%) agreed that ON fit within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) category Eating and Feeding Disorders, and (72%) indicated that ON should be included as a diagnosis in future versions of the DSM. Of respondents who reported that ON should not be considered a diagnosis, the majority believed the disordered eating pattern fit within Anorexia Nervosa (N = 19) or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (N=10). Notably, two percent of health professionals in our sample reported that the condition was “not at all” prevalent in the U.S, while 10% believed it was “extremely” prevalent. Further, 79 participants reported they had met clients who fulfilled ON criteria proposed by Dunn and Bratman, 60 of whom reported meeting a client who fulfilled the criteria within the last year. Interesting differences emerged when examining results by participants’ professional time allocated to research versus clinical work. Specifically, the health professionals that disagreed with ON as a discrete diagnosis reported spending significantly more time on research (M = 54.12%, SD = 29.68) than the health professionals that reported ON should be recognized as a unique disorder (M = 36.69%, SD = 30.59), t(82) = -2.44, p < .05. Similarly, participants that endorsed ON as a diagnosis spent significantly more time on clinical work (M = 63.31%, SD = 34.37) compared to participants who disagreed (M = 41.69%, SD = 28.51), t(82) = 2.85, p < .05. Our findings give insight into the current state of knowledge and beliefs among practicing health professionals in the ongoing ON debate. A majority of participants in our sample believe ON warrants a DSM diagnosis and many say they have worked clinically with presentations consistent with ON. The disparate opinions of those who engage in more clinical work compared to research raises an important consideration of how the ON diagnosis debate translates from academia to clinical work and by association, to the individuals suffering from this disordered eating pattern.