Acceptability of a personalised single-session feedback intervention for eating disorders: a qualitative content analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Eating disorders (EDs) are prevalent, serious conditions that often require specialised care. Barriers to treatment are numerous and include cost, waitlists, geographic limitations, and lack of services for earlier-stage illness. Single-session interventions (SSIs) hold promise as accessible, cost-effective approaches to support individuals with EDs who may otherwise be unable to access care. However, to ensure uptake and use in real-world contexts, SSIs must be acceptable to their target population. This qualitative study investigated the anticipated acceptability of an SSI for EDs that provides a personalised health reports and self-management resources. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 individuals with EDs (including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and avoidant restrictive food intake disorder; 15 women, 1 gender-nonconforming). Participants had previously participated in an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study of ED symptoms and correlates. Participants were queried about: (1) interest in receiving a personalised feedback SSI based on their EMA data, and (2) preferences and opinions on the format, content, and delivery of feedback. Anonymised transcripts were inductively coded and interpreted using content analysis in NVivo. Results were organised into seven themes, with 24 subthemes representing participant views and recommendations. All participants wanted to receive personalised health feedback. They anticipated multiple benefits, including personalisation, potential to increase self-awareness, accessibility, and ability to share feedback reports with healthcare providers. Challenges identified were the possibility of raising unpleasant emotions, and concerns about utility or safety of feedback to those with low insight and/or severe EDs. Participants preferred SSI content to be graphical, engaging, short-form, and in a gentle or neutral tone. Most participants expressed interest in receiving personalised self-management resources. Content analysis of qualitative interviews indicated that our sample of people with EDs would find receiving personalised health feedback and self-management resources in the form of an SSI to be helpful. Though participants were enthusiastic about receiving health data, given concerns about utility and potential harm, a considerate approach to providing ED-related feedback is necessary. Continued involvement of lived experience perspectives in shaping personalised ED interventions is recommended. Eating disorders (EDs) are serious and common, but accessing treatment is difficult due to cost, location, waitlists, and reservation of care for the most severe cases. Single-session interventions (SSIs) are one-session treatments that hold promise for improving access to healthcare, especially for those in earlier stages of illness. Personalised SSIs could address individual needs to provide the most help as efficiently as possible. However, it is important to understand whether people with EDs are receptive to personalisation and SSIs. This study interviewed 16 people with EDs about whether they would be interested in a personalised SSI. The SSI would provide feedback on a person’s ED symptoms and strategies to better understand their experience and support their recovery. Participants were receptive, stating they valued detailed information, that they would like actionable recommendations to care for their health, and that feedback could be shared with doctors and therapists to better support them. They were concerned that feedback could bring up shameful emotions, which for some, might trigger ED behaviours. Participants recommended that feedback be offered in various formats and conveyed in a gentle tone to accommodate different learning styles and reduce potential distress.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».