Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/aims: Reported prevalence for Compulsive Buying-Shopping Disorder (CBSD) remains inconsistent. We updated global CBSD prevalence estimates, including sex/gender comparisons and online manifestations, through a registered systematic review/meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence in non-clinical samples (PROSPERO CRD42024591568; published 30/09/2024) following PRISMA/MOOSE. Methods: PubMed/Scopus/Web of Science were searched (without geographical/temporal restrictions; through 06/2026). Two reviewers independently conducted screening, extraction, risk of bias (RoB) assessment (Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies). DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models estimated pooled prevalence in representative adult, student/young adult, convenience, adolescent, online buying-shopping samples. Subgroup analyses: year, field, region, assessment, sample size, age, RoB. Evidence certainty followed GRADE. Results: 111 studies (121 estimates; N = 134,907; 32 countries) were included. Pooled prevalence estimates: 4.6% [3.6%, 5.5%] in representative adult; 9.2% [8.0%, 10.4%] in student/young adult; 10.7% [9.3%, 12.2%]) in convenience; 20.6% in adolescent [10.2%, 31.1%]; 5.9% [4.1%, 7.7%]) in online samples. No sex/gender differences emerged in representative/adolescent/online samples. Women showed higher rates than men in student/young adult/convenience samples. Heterogeneity was high (I2 > 90%). Subgroup findings: significant differences for publication year/region in representative adult; region/assessment/RoB in student/young adult; publication year/sample size in convenience samples; no subgroup differences in adolescent/online samples. Certainty was moderate for representative adult samples, (very) low for all others. Discussion: Findings underscore the need for diverse, age-adapted, cross-cultural epidemiological research including gender-diverse populations and different consumer environments. Conclusions: CBSD is prevalent, particularly among youth. Gender gaps appear limited in binary sex/gender comparisons, evidence for gender minorities remains largely absent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laskowski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: