Dataset Information

Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Recovery from anorexia nervosa (AN) is difficult to define, and efforts to establish recovery criteria have led to several versions being proposed. Using the perspectives of people with histories of AN and therapists working in the field, we sought to explore the face validity of Khalsa et al (2017) as one of the most recent examples of proposed systematic recovery criteria.

Design

We interviewed 11 health service users (SUs) with histories of AN who had previously received treatment alongside 8 eating disorder therapists (EDTs), exploring their views on the proposed AN recovery criteria.

Methods

Data from verbal and written interviews were analysed thematically. Separate thematic analyses of SU and EDT interviews highlighted where concerns converged and diverged across participants.

Results

Both groups saw some merits of having universally recognized recovery criteria, and the multidimensional approach was welcomed, but EDTs were uncomfortable with considering their use in therapy and SUs felt key components were missing around emotional coping and life quality. SUs disliked the prominence of body mass index (BMI) in the criteria, and all struggled with the proposed duration for recovery. Conceptually, the notion of recovery as an endpoint rather than a journey was contested.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate disparities between academically derived recovery criteria and lived experiences and indicate perceived challenges in using such criteria in therapeutic settings. Including SUs and EDTs in the development of criteria may improve the likelihood of consolidating AN recovery criteria, but conceptual challenges remain.

Practitioner points

AN recovery is complex, and the use of research-based AN recovery criteria in therapeutic settings could have a detrimental effect on SUs' outcomes. EDTs should be aware of efforts to define AN recovery criteria. EDTs should engage with debates on defining AN recovery and seek to promote participation in such debates to SUs.

SUBMITTER: McDonald S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451855 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEating disorders affect 13% of females and contribute to functional impairment and mortality, but few studies have identified risk factors that prospectively correlate with future onset of anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), and purging disorder (PD). Identifying risk factors specific to each eating disorder is critical for advancing etiologic knowledge and designing effective prevention programs.ObjectivesThis study examined whether weight suppression (the difference between a person's highest past weight at their adult height and their current weight) correlates with future onset of AN, BN, BED, and PD.MethodsData from 1165 young women with body image concerns (mean ± SD age: 21.9 ± 6.4 y) who completed annual diagnostic interviews over a 3-y follow-up period were examined. Logistic regression models evaluated the relation of baseline weight suppression to onset risk of each eating disorder controlling for age, dietary restraint, and intervention condition.ResultsElevated weight suppression predicted future onset of AN (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.80), BN (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.62), PD (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.23, 1.74), and any eating disorder (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.56), but not BED (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.37). Highest past weight correlated with future onset of BN and PD but not onset of AN, BED, or any eating disorder, and baseline current weight was inversely related to future AN onset only, implying that women with the largest difference between their highest past weight and current weight are at greatest risk of eating disorders.ConclusionsThe results provide novel evidence that weight suppression correlates with future onset of eating disorders characterized by dietary restriction or compensatory weight control behaviors and suggest weight-suppressed women constitute an important risk group to target with selective prevention programs.These trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01126918 and NCT01949649.

Project description:BackgroundAdmissions to intensive treatment (i.e., inpatient [IP] and/or day patient [DP]) for individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) are common. Growing literature indicates potential risks and benefits of each intensive treatment approach; however, existing research has focused on patient and carer perspectives of these treatments. Also, there is scant empirical evidence available for guiding the parameters of intensive treatments for AN. We therefore explored clinicians' perspectives and experience of supporting adults with severe AN in intensive settings.MethodsWe conducted twenty one semi-structured interviews with clinicians who deliver intensive treatments (i.e., IP and/or DP) for individuals with severe AN across four specialist Eating Disorder Services in the United Kingdom between May 2020 and June 2021. We asked clinicians about their views and experiences of supporting individuals with severe AN in intensive treatment settings and the challenges and opportunities associated with IP and DP treatment. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software.ResultsFive broad and interrelated themes were identified: (1) Intensive Support; (2) The Severity of Patients' Illnesses; (3) Hope and Recovery; (4) Which Treatment When; (5) Limited Resources; and (6) Carer Burden. We identified various similarities between the two intensive treatment approaches, including the value of intensive and multidisciplinary support and carer involvement, and the challenge of managing complex and unique needs in resource-limited intensive settings. We also found differences in the relationship of treatment to patients' home environments, the necessity of patient motivation, and the management of risk.ConclusionsBoth intensive treatment settings are valued by clinicians; however, there are unique challenges and opportunities for supporting individuals with severe AN within each. Our findings suggest DP treatment may be used as an alternative to IP treatment for individuals with severe AN. However, clear questions remain over which intensive treatment setting is best suited to which patient when and should be the focus of future research.