Reluctance to Recover in Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reluctance to recover may explain poor treatment outcome and high dropout and relapse rates in the treatment of anorexia nervosa (AN). This study systematically explored what AN patients describe as interfering with their wish to recover. METHOD: Two independent samples of women with AN (total N = 36) were interviewed in-depth using a phenomenological study design. Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed using QSR-NVivo7 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) software. RESULTS: Seven core obstacles were found to interfere with informants' wish to recover as follows: (i) 'perceiving judgements'; (ii) 'feeling stuck'; (iii) 'feeling distressed'; (iv) 'denying AN'; (v) 'eating'; (vi) 'gaining weight'; and (vii) 'appreciating the benefits'. CONCLUSION: The wish to recover is an autonomously based, fundamental motivational requirement for becoming ready to change. Understanding factors that contribute to this wish adds to the clinician's toolbox in motivational work with AN patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".