This study aimed to identify the important capacities that were most urgently needed during emergency response and factors associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) professionals’ field coping-capacity for public health emergency.

Professional workers (N = 1854) from 40 CDC institutions were chosen using the stratified cluster random sampling method in all 13 municipalities of Heilongjiang Province, China. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used.

Of 10 key capacities, the 3 that were most urgently needed during emergency response fieldwork as identified by respondents were crisis communication capacity, personal protection capacity, and laboratory detection capacity. Overall, 38.1% of respondents self-rated as “poor” on their coping-capacity. The logistic regression found that proficiency in emergency preparedness planning, more practical experiences in emergency response, effectiveness in training and drills, a higher education level, and a higher professional position were significantly associated with the individual’s field coping-capacity.

This study identified CDC professionals’ most urgent capacity need and the obstructive factors and highlighted the importance of enhancing the capacity in crisis communication, personal protection, and laboratory detection. Intervention should be targeted at sufficient fund, formalized, and effective emergency training and drills, more operational technical guidance, and all-around supervision and evaluation.

DSM-IV cites <85% of expected body weight (EBW) as a guideline for the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (AN) but does not require a specific method for calculating EBW. The purpose of the present study was to determine the degree to which weight cut-off calculations vary across studies, and to evaluate whether differential cut-offs lead to discrepancies in the prevalence of individuals who are eligible for the AN diagnosis.

Two coders independently recorded the EBW calculation methods from 99 studies that either (a) compared individuals with AN to those with subclinical eating disorders or (b) conducted AN treatment trials. Each weight cut-off was applied to a nationally representative (n=12001) and treatment-seeking (n=189) sample to determine the impact of EBW calculation on the proportion who met the AN weight criterion.

Coders identified 10 different EBW methods, each of which produced different weight cut-offs for the diagnosis of AN. Although only 0.23% of the national sample met the lowest cut-off, this number increased 43-fold to 10.10% under the highest cut-off. Similarly, only 48.1% of treatment seekers met the lowest cut-off, whereas 89.4% met the highest.

There is considerable variance across studies in the determination of the AN weight cut-off. Discrepancies substantially affect the proportion of individuals who are eligible for diagnosis, treatment and insurance reimbursement. However, differences may not be fully appreciated because the ubiquitous citation of the 85% criterion creates a sense of false consensus.