A Qualitative Assessment of the Treatment Needs of Women with Concurrent Eating and Substance Use Disorders in a Residential Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Eating and substance use disorders (SUD) are generally treated separately, leaving eating disorders (ED) overlooked within substance use treatment. The frequent co-occurrence of SUD and ED is well documented. Despite their many similarities and frequent co-occurrence, these two disorder types continue to be largely treated separately–either sequentially, with the most severe disorder addressed first, or concurrently but in separate programs. Our study, therefore, responds to this lacuna of data on patient and provider treatment needs for integrated ED and SUD treatment, centering the perspectives of women with lived experience of ED and SUD to support the development of therapeutic groups for women in treatment programs. Methods: This study was designed as a needs and assets assessment to determine the needs and priorities of women with concurrent ED and SUD for developing group programs. Participants for the needs assessment included both staff members (n = 10) and women receiving treatment (n = 10) who were recruited from a 90-day residential treatment program for women with SUD in British Columbia, Canada. Interviews and focus groups conducted with participants were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analyzed and coded using Dedoose software. Results: Six key themes emerged from the qualitative data and were organized into sections with sub themes. An overarching premise from both staff and program participants was the need for concurrent therapeutic programming, nutritional support, and medical monitoring. The six discrete themes that were elicited included the similarities between ED and SUD, gaps in treatment, community support, family involvement, program participant treatment suggestions, staff treatment suggestions, and family involvement. Conclusions: Throughout this qualitative study, the need for screening and assessment of both disorders along with integrated treatment was stressed by participants, both program participants and staff alike. These findings complement current literature and suggest that pursuing concurrent treatment design may be helpful in addressing unmet program participant needs and could provide a more holistic framework for recovery.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».