Dataset Information

Clinicians' perspectives on supporting individuals with severe anorexia nervosa in specialist eating disorder intensive treatment settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Admissions 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Five 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.

Conclusions

Both 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.

SUBMITTER: Webb H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8733908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesRecovery 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.DesignWe 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.MethodsData from verbal and written interviews were analysed thematically. Separate thematic analyses of SU and EDT interviews highlighted where concerns converged and diverged across participants.ResultsBoth 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.ConclusionsOur 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 pointsAN 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.