Featured Post from University of Florida

Mental health providers may have trouble detecting bulimia in patients, study finds

Jan 12, 2026

3 min

Rebecca Pearl


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove

When presented with a vignette describing the behaviors and characteristics of a patient with disordered eating, only a quarter of mental health providers who participated in a new study were able to correctly diagnose bulimia nervosa.


The findings from researchers at the University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, part of UF Health, appear in the journal Eating Disorders.


Two common, yet less-recognized, patient factors may have led to the misdiagnoses, said Dakota Leget, a doctoral student in the college’s Ph.D. program in clinical and health psychology, who conducted the study with her mentor, Rebecca Pearl, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology. The providers who participated in the study reviewed vignettes about a fictitious patient who was described as either having healthy weight or obesity and who used excessive exercise to compensate for overeating.


Many patients with bulimia have average or higher body weight, yet misconceptions persist about the “typical” patient with bulimia, Leget said.


“Unfortunately, we have stereotypes that someone with an eating disorder will look ‘very lean’ or ‘sickly,’ but we know that’s not the case for a lot of eating disorders,” she said.


The study findings also suggest that providers may not associate excessive exercise with bulimia, despite the fact that it is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as one of multiple compensatory strategies used by people with bulimia.


“I think my biggest takeaway is that excessive exercise may not be on mental health providers’ radar and may be overlooked when patients are presenting for care,” Leget said.


For the study, the researchers recruited a nationwide sample of more than 200 mental health providers to read two patient vignettes and then select a diagnosis and recommended number of treatment sessions from a dropdown list of options. The vignettes described fictitious patients who met full diagnostic criteria for their respective disorders, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


Three-quarters of participants correctly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the first patient vignette, which served as a control.



Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of two versions of the second vignette. In one version, the patient was described as having a healthy weight; in the second, the patient was described as having obesity. The other patient details were the same for both versions. The patient in the vignette reported she followed a strict diet a few days a week and engaged in a cycle of binge eating accompanied by excessive exercise. The vignette also described the patient’s thoughts and feelings about her appearance and how they affected her activities and relationships.


Only 27% of providers correctly diagnosed the patient as having bulimia nervosa, and 38% of providers incorrectly diagnosed the patient with binge eating disorder.


Correctly distinguishing between bulimia, binge eating or any other eating disorder is critical, the authors say, not only to ensure patients receive the right treatment, but also to appropriately monitor for other health effects, such as dangerously low sodium levels caused by excessive exercise.


“If you are treating the wrong eating disorder, you might not be using the best evidence-based strategy,” Leget said.


The findings also point to the need for more continuing education on eating disorders for mental health providers who may not have specialized training, Leget said.


“Many people with eating disorders will probably be seen in outpatient settings and they may not be seen by someone with expertise in this area,” Leget said. “Early detection and treatment are crucial. If the community provider is able to detect an eating disorder they can treat that person or guide them to someone with the appropriate expertise so the patient gets the treatment they need sooner rather than later.”
Connect with:
Rebecca Pearl

Rebecca Pearl

Assistant Professor

Rebecca Pearl conducts research on health and appearance-based stigma, body image, eating disorders and obesity.

StigmaEating DisordersBody ImageObesity
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Florida

4 min

AI in the classroom: What parents need to know

As students return to classrooms, Maya Israel, professor of educational technology and computer science education at the University of Florida, shares insights on best practices for AI use for students in K-12. She also serves as the director of CSEveryone Center for Computer Science Education at UF, a program created to boost teachers’ capabilities around computer science and AI in education. Israel also leads the Florida K-12 Education Task Force, a group committed to empowering educators, students, families and administrators by harnessing the transformative potential of AI in K-12 classrooms, prioritizing safety, privacy, access and fairness. How are K–12 students using AI in classrooms? There is a wide range of approaches that students are using AI in classrooms. It depends on several factors including district policies, student age and the teacher’s instructional goals. Some districts restrict AI to only teacher use, such as creating custom reading passages for younger students. Others allow older students to use tools to check grammar, create visuals or run science simulations. Even then, skilled teachers frame AI as one tool, not a replacement for student thinking and effort. What are examples of age-appropriate tools that enhance learning? AI tools can be used to either enhance or erode learner agency and critical thinking. It is up to the educators to consider how these tools can be used appropriately. It is critical to use AI tools in a manner that supports learning, creativity and problem solving rather than bypass critical thinking. For example, Canva lets students create infographics, posters and videos to show understanding. Google’s Teachable Machine helps students learn AI concepts by training their own image-recognition models. These types of AI-augmented tools work best when they are embedded into activities such as project-based learning, where AI supports learning and critical thinking. How do teachers ensure AI supports core skills? While AI can be incredibly helpful in supporting learning, it should not be a shortcut that allows students to bypass learning. Teachers should design learning opportunities that integrate AI in a manner that encourages critical thinking. For example, if students are using AI to support their mathematical understanding, teachers should ask them to explain their reasoning, engage in discussions and attempt to solve problems in different ways. Teachers can ask students questions like, “Does that answer make sense based on what you know?” or “Why do you think [said AI tool] made that suggestion?” This type of reflection reinforces the message that learning does not happen through getting fast answers. Learning happens through exploration, productive struggle and collaboration. Many parents worry that using AI might make students too dependent on technology. How do educators address that concern? This is a very valid concern. Over-reliance on AI can erode independence and critical thinking, that’s why teachers should be intentional in how they use AI for teaching and learning. Educators can address this concern by communicating with parents their policies and approaches to using AI with students. This approach can include providing clear expectations of when AI is used, designing assignments that require critical thinking, personal reflection and reasoning and teaching students the metacognitive skills to self-assess how and when to use AI so that it is used to support learning rather than as a crutch. How do schools ensure that students still develop original thinking and creativity when using AI for assignments or projects? In the age of AI, there is the need to be even more intentional designing learning experiences where students engage in creative and critical thinking. One of the best practices that have shown to support this is the use of project-based learning, where students must create, iterate and evaluate ideas based on feedback from their peers and teachers. AI can help students gather ideas or organize research, but the students must ask the questions, synthesize information and produce original ideas. Assessment and rubrics should emphasize skills such as reasoning, process and creativity rather than just focusing on the final product. That way, although AI can play a role in instruction, the goal is to design instructional activities that move beyond what the AI can do. How do educators help students understand when it’s appropriate to use AI in their schoolwork? In the age of AI, educators should help students develop the skills to be original thinkers who can use AI thoughtfully and responsibly. Educators can help students understand when to use AI in their school work by directly embedding AI literacy into their instruction. AI literacy includes having discussions about the capabilities and limitations of AI, ethical considerations and the importance of students’ agency and original thoughts. Additionally, clear guidelines and policies help students navigate some of the gray areas of AI usage. What guidance should parents give at home? There are several key messages that parents should give their children about the use of AI. The most important message is that even though AI is powerful, it does not replace their judgement, creativity or empathy. Even though AI can provide fast answers, it is important for students to learn the skills themselves. Another key message is to know the rules about AI in the classroom. Parents should speak with their students about the mental health implications of over-reliance on AI. When students turn to AI-augmented tools for every answer or idea, they can gradually lose confidence in their own problem-solving abilities. Instead, students should learn how to use AI in ways that strengthen their skills and build independence.

3 min

Is writing with AI at work undermining your credibility?

With over 75% of professionals using AI in their daily work, writing and editing messages with tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot or Claude has become a commonplace practice. While generative AI tools are seen to make writing easier, are they effective for communicating between managers and employees? A new study of 1,100 professionals reveals a critical paradox in workplace communications: AI tools can make managers’ emails more professional, but regular use can undermine trust between them and their employees. “We see a tension between perceptions of message quality and perceptions of the sender,” said Anthony Coman, Ph.D., a researcher at the University of Florida's Warrington College of Business and study co-author. “Despite positive impressions of professionalism in AI-assisted writing, managers who use AI for routine communication tasks put their trustworthiness at risk when using medium- to high-levels of AI assistance." In the study published in the International Journal of Business Communication, Coman and his co-author, Peter Cardon, Ph.D., of the University of Southern California, surveyed professionals about how they viewed emails that they were told were written with low, medium and high AI assistance. Survey participants were asked to evaluate different AI-written versions of a congratulatory message on both their perception of the message content and their perception of the sender. While AI-assisted writing was generally seen as efficient, effective, and professional, Coman and Cardon found a “perception gap” in messages that were written by managers versus those written by employees. “When people evaluate their own use of AI, they tend to rate their use similarly across low, medium and high levels of assistance,” Coman explained. “However, when rating other’s use, magnitude becomes important. Overall, professionals view their own AI use leniently, yet they are more skeptical of the same levels of assistance when used by supervisors.” While low levels of AI help, like grammar or editing, were generally acceptable, higher levels of assistance triggered negative perceptions. The perception gap is especially significant when employees perceive higher levels of AI writing, bringing into question the authorship, integrity, caring and competency of their manager. The impact on trust was substantial: Only 40% to 52% of employees viewed supervisors as sincere when they used high levels of AI, compared to 83% for low-assistance messages. Similarly, while 95% found low-AI supervisor messages professional, this dropped to 69-73% when supervisors relied heavily on AI tools. The findings reveal employees can often detect AI-generated content and interpret its use as laziness or lack of caring. When supervisors rely heavily on AI for messages like team congratulations or motivational communications, employees perceive them as less sincere and question their leadership abilities. “In some cases, AI-assisted writing can undermine perceptions of traits linked to a supervisor’s trustworthiness,” Coman noted, specifically citing impacts on perceived ability and integrity, both key components of cognitive-based trust. The study suggests managers should carefully consider message type, level of AI assistance and relational context before using AI in their writing. While AI may be appropriate and professionally received for informational or routine communications, like meeting reminders or factual announcements, relationship-oriented messages requiring empathy, praise, congratulations, motivation or personal feedback are better handled with minimal technological intervention.

2 min

MedPage Today: Ozzy Osbourne shined a light on Parkinson’s stigma

Ozzy Osbourne was best known for two things: his shape-shifting resilience as a pioneer of heavy metal music and, most recently, his remarkable authenticity during his public journey with Parkinson's disease. Osbourne, who passed away on July 22, possessed a unique ability to connect directly with people who were suffering. He was an honest and transparent voice for what it was like to live with a neurodegenerative disease. He was willing to go where others would not, and he took on the stigma of a Parkinson's diagnosis. Stigma remains one of the most underrecognized yet pervasive challenges in Parkinson's disease. Far too often, individuals are made to feel ashamed of their visible symptoms like tremors, facial masking, or soft speech. This reality can lead to social withdrawal, depression, and even delayed medical care. Research has shown that perceived stigma is not only linked to reduced quality of life, but it also correlates with worse outcomes. That's why, when someone like Osbourne rises up and speaks out, it matters. It sends a powerful message that Parkinson's does not define a person, and that no one should suffer in silence. Many people with Parkinson's disease choose to conceal their diagnosis from those closest to them. A recent study published in Scientific Reports found that nearly 23% of participants kept their condition hidden, even from family members. Broader surveys have suggested that more than half of individuals with Parkinson's disease may conceal symptoms, mask tremors, or avoid public situations due to stigma and fear of judgment. People who hide their diagnosis frequently report lower social support, reduced engagement in physical activity, and significantly worse emotional well-being. These findings underscore how pervasive and harmful disclosure avoidance can be.

View all posts
Powered by