Obstacles and facilitators of therapeutic alliance among adolescents with anorexia nervosa, their parents and their psychiatrists: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic alliance is one of the most important aspects of treatment of adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Little is known about the facilitators and obstacles of its process in this situation. We aimed to explore the experience of therapeutic alliance in inpatient treatment among adolescents with anorexia nervosa, their parents and their psychiatrists. METHODS: continued until we reached theoretical sufficiency. Data analysis was thematic. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were included, 15 teenaged girls, 18 parents and 8 psychiatrists. Analysis showed two themes: (1) what facilitates an alliance in treatment - with four facilitators: (a) human qualities, (b) an active role in the treatment, (c) taking time and (d) taking care of the entire family and (2) what impedes an alliance in treatment with four obstacles: (a) being too close or too distant, (b) focusing on weight, (c) control and constraints and (d) psychiatrization. CONCLUSION: Collaborative work between paediatricians and psychiatrists could facilitate therapeutic alliance with parents. Definition of therapeutic alliance in this situation should be enlarged to include the adolescent-parent relationship. It is necessary to construct specific items to integrate these specific aspects to existing scales.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".