Eating Disorders in the Workplace: A Qualitative Investigation of Women’s Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though employment is typically associated with positive mental health outcomes for individuals with disabilities, the ubiquity of stress and stigma at work may complicate the relation between work and well-being for women with eating disorders (EDs). To date, however, the experiences of women with EDs in the workplace have not been examined. By utilizing a qualitative methodology to form an initial framework for the examination of EDs in the workplace, we address this gap in the literature. Seventy adult women with anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder discussed the relation between work and their condition. The data analysis led to the delineation of a theoretical model, which we propose explains the interconnections between key study constructs, including individual characteristics; workplace stressors; identity, stigma, and stress management techniques; and related personal and organizational outcomes. Our research suggests that, depending on how stress is managed, the workplace can serve as a bridge or a barrier to ED recovery. This study lays the groundwork for understanding the ways in which workplace life interacts and interferes with ED management, opening up a new line of investigation for researchers working to enhance the lives of individuals with EDs across life domains.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".