MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416626709 · doi:10.1186/s40337-025-01452-2

Clinician knowledge and perceptions of evidence-based practice in pediatric eating disorders in Western Canada

2025· article· en· W4416626709 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Amelia Austin, Emily Williams, Melissa Kimber, Alex Burns, Priscilla Karnabi, Gina Dimitropoulos, Jennifer S. Coelho

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEating Disorders and Behaviors
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalDiscovery CentreAlberta Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryBC Children's HospitalMichael Smith Health Research BCAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityBC Mental Health and Substance Use Services
Mots-clésPerceptionEating disordersClinical PracticeMEDLINETraining (meteorology)Affect (linguistics)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Evidence-based practice (EBP) for pediatric eating disorders (EDs), including the strongly recommended family-based treatment (FBT), is not always available to children, adolescents or emerging adults and their families. Our aim was to investigate clinician knowledge and perspectives of EBP, including FBT, and explore barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Clinicians working in Western Canada who were engaged in care for pediatric EDs were invited to participate. A multimethod design was employed using an online survey and subsequent phone interview for data collection. Descriptive data was summarized using means and frequencies. Qualitative data was analysed using a mixed approach encompassing inductive and deductive techniques. Eighty-four clinicians completed the survey and 24 completed the interview. A total of 64% of clinicians providing therapy were offering FBT in their practice. Of these, 12.5% had no formal training in the modality. Clinicians identified a range of barriers and facilitators to EBP, including FBT, such as service-centered reasons (inadequate training, staff beliefs around which professionals should be involved, program mandates, and private practice therapists struggling to get other professionals on the ‘same page’ in FBT), clinician-centered reasons (desire to offer more holistic care, lack of inclusion of dietetics, belief that FBT was better suited to hospital settings), and patient/family-centered reasons (co-occurring conditions in parents or children, lack of financial privilege). The barriers to delivering EBP, and low rates of formal FBT training indicate a need to improve capacity building efforts for pediatric ED clinicians, including improved access to training and consultation. Children, youth and their families can experience challenges with accessing timely evidence-based treatment for eating disorders. Our team engaged with clinicians working in British Columbia and Alberta to understand their knowledge and perspectives of care for pediatric eating disorders, and learn about factors that help and hinder the implementation of treatment approaches that are recommended in Canadian guidelines, such as family-based treatment (FBT). Participants completed an online survey and were also invited to take part in a subsequent phone interview, with 84 clinicians taking part in the survey, and 24 in the interview. Nearly two-thirds of therapists were offering FBT in clinical care; however, some of these therapists reported having no formal training in FBT. Clinicians shared a variety of barriers to using evidence-based practice, including FBT, in their clinical work. This study suggests a need to improve access to training and consultation for clinicians to help make evidence-based treatments for pediatric eating disorders more available.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,618
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,887

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,353 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Eating DisordersMême sujetEating Disorders and BehaviorsTravaux en français237 207