A qualitative evaluation of team and family perceptions of family-based treatment delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) for adolescent Anorexia Nervosa during the COVID-19 pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient eating disorder care, including Family-Based Treatment (FBT), rapidly transitioned from in-person to virtual delivery in many programs. This paper reports on the experiences of teams and families with FBT delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) who were part of a larger implementation study. METHODS: Four pediatric eating disorder programs in Ontario, Canada, including their therapists (n = 8), medical practitioners (n = 4), administrators (n = 6), and families (n = 5), participated in our study. We provided FBT-V training and delivered clinical consultation. Therapists recorded and submitted their first four FBT-V sessions. Focus groups were conducted with teams and families at each site after the first four FBT-V sessions. Focus group transcripts were transcribed verbatim and key concepts were identified through line-by-line reading and categorizing of the text. All transcripts were double-coded. Focus group data were analyzed using directed and summative qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of focus group data from teams and families revealed four overarching categories-pros of FBT-V, cons of FBT-V, FBT-V process, and suggestions for enhancing and improving FBT-V. Pros included being able to treat more patients and developing a better understanding of family dynamics by being virtually invited into the family's home (identified by teams), as well as convenience and comfort (identified by families). Both teams and families recognized technical difficulties as a potential con of FBT-V, yet teams also commented on distractions in family homes as a con, while families expressed difficulties in developing therapeutic rapport. Regarding FBT-V process, teams and families discussed the importance and challenge of patient weighing at home. In terms of suggestions for improvement, teams proposed assessing a family's suitability or motivation for FBT-V to ensure it would be appropriate, while families strongly suggested implementing hybrid models of FBT in the future which would include some in-person and some virtual sessions. CONCLUSION: Team and family perceptions of FBT-V were generally positive, indicating acceptability and feasibility of this treatment. Suggestions for improved FBT-V practices were made by both groups, and require future investigation, such as examining hybrid models of FBT that involve in-person and virtual elements. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04678843 .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».