Inpatients with Severe Anorexia Nervosa and Their Siblings: Non‐shared Experiences and Family Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were the following: to identify perceptions of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) and their siblings regarding differential experiences within and external to the family including sibling interactions, parental treatment, relationships with peers and events that are unique to each sibling; (2) to compare how patients and their siblings perceive eating disorder symptoms, parental affection/control, social support and stigma; and (3) to test associations with family functioning for patients with AN and their siblings. METHOD: A total of 26 patients paired with their siblings were recruited from an Eating Disorder Program and administered standardized instruments measuring different experiences within and external to the family, the impact of eating disorder behaviours, stigma, social support and family functioning. RESULTS: Patients rated high on the differential experience of jealousy in contrast to their siblings. Patients scored higher than their siblings on eating symptoms, whereas siblings scored higher on social support. The impact of AN on the family, stigma towards the individual and family, and social support accounted for 37% of the variance in family functioning from the sibling perspective after controlling for age and gender. Of these variables, impact of AN on the family made the largest contribution. DISCUSSION: Family-based and sibling-based interventions that aim to reduce the effects of the illness on the sibling relationship and the family are recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".