Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McDonald, Sarah, Williams, A. Jess, Barr, Phoebe, McNamara, Niamh, Marriott, Mike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papt.12340
_version_ 1784569940068532224
author McDonald, Sarah
Williams, A. Jess
Barr, Phoebe
McNamara, Niamh
Marriott, Mike
author_facet McDonald, Sarah
Williams, A. Jess
Barr, Phoebe
McNamara, Niamh
Marriott, Mike
author_sort McDonald, Sarah
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8451855
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84518552021-09-27 Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria McDonald, Sarah Williams, A. Jess Barr, Phoebe McNamara, Niamh Marriott, Mike Psychol Psychother Qualitative Papers 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-24 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8451855/ /pubmed/33761183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papt.12340 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Qualitative Papers
McDonald, Sarah
Williams, A. Jess
Barr, Phoebe
McNamara, Niamh
Marriott, Mike
Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title_full Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title_fullStr Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title_full_unstemmed Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title_short Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
title_sort service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria
topic Qualitative Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papt.12340
work_keys_str_mv AT mcdonaldsarah serviceuserandeatingdisordertherapistviewsonanorexianervosarecoverycriteria
AT williamsajess serviceuserandeatingdisordertherapistviewsonanorexianervosarecoverycriteria
AT barrphoebe serviceuserandeatingdisordertherapistviewsonanorexianervosarecoverycriteria
AT mcnamaraniamh serviceuserandeatingdisordertherapistviewsonanorexianervosarecoverycriteria
AT marriottmike serviceuserandeatingdisordertherapistviewsonanorexianervosarecoverycriteria