Expanding the concept of motivation to change: The content of patients' wish to recover from anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motivational approaches to anorexia nervosa (AN) have mainly concerned motivational quality and quantity. We investigated the content of patients' wish to recover. METHOD: Eighteen women, aged 18-39, with AN were interviewed in depth using a phenomenological study design. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the QSR-N*Vivo software program. RESULTS: Four motivational content areas characterized informants' wishes to recover: "Sense of vitality" (e.g., joy, concentration, spontaneity, energy); "Sense of autonomy" (e.g., choosing to recover, new methods of mastery, self-determination); "Sense of insight" (e.g., awareness, seeing nuances, limitation of goals, self-knowledge); and "Negative consequences" (e.g., loss of future, costs to own children, feeling sick or thin, social costs, physical costs). CONCLUSION: Our sample of AN patients' motivation to recover may be described using three dimensions: content, quality, and quantity, and may also include motives with no behavioral intention. Sustained therapeutic success may rest upon the therapist's ability to identify and ally with the patient's motives to recover.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".