Relapse in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Individuals' Experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Relapse is common in eating disorders (EDs); however, it has received significantly more attention within quantitative research. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative findings regarding the experiences of relapse for people with EDs. METHOD: A search for studies reporting qualitative data that included experiences of relapse in individuals with EDs was conducted. This included a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, SSCI, and PQDT Global along with supplementary searching. A total of 1594 titles and abstracts and 168 full texts were screened for eligibility. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Quality appraisal was conducted using the CASP checklist. Data were extracted from each paper and thematic synthesis of relevant data from study findings/discussion was completed in NVivo. RESULTS: Most included studies involved female participants in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom with anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Five analytical themes were generated: 1) "I wasn't letting go": Relapse as enticing; 2) "Bound to lose": Relapse as unstoppable; 3) "If the going gets tough I've always got this": Relapse as protective; 4) "Coming back with your tail between your legs": Relapse as destructive; 5) "So much of this journey … is learning": Relapse as instructive. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight the gap between psychological and behavioral improvements that precede relapse, and the contrasting ways relapse is described and experienced. They support a focus on motivational factors and underlying psychological difficulties in treatment, extending beyond a behavioral focus. Further research is needed to understand relapse experiences among males and individuals from the global majority. SUMMARY: Individuals with EDs who relapsed described desiring or feeling powerless to control relapse. Findings suggest the need for greater emphasis on developing intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in order to sustain recovery. Residual ED cognitions and unaddressed psychological vulnerabilities were implicated in relapse. Findings caution against premature discharge before sufficient cognitive and emotional progress has been made. In response to relapse, clinicians should aim to foster hope, compassion and tailor treatment to address the recovery needs revealed by relapse.
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 | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».