Parental Experiences with their Child’s Treatment Journey: The Road to Tertiary Level Pediatric Eating Disorder Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Parents are integral in the treatment of pediatric eating disorders. The current study was conducted to further understand the barriers and facilitators that parents experience in accessing specialized, tertiary level eating disorder treatment for children and adolescents. The goals of the study were to understand the processes leading to diagnosis and treatment, perceived barriers and facilitators to accessing care, and parents’ experiences over the course of their child’s eating disorders treatment. Methods: Ten parents whose children were admitted to a tertiary level specialized pediatric eating disorders program took part in an exit interview upon their child’s discharge. In-depth semi-structured interviews were combined with a visual timeline. Interpretive induction was performed to generate high level concepts that emerged from the interviews. Results: Five high level concepts were identified: (1) delays in identifying eating disorder symptoms, (2) challenges in accessing eating disorder services, (3) the right treatment at the right time, (4) emotional impact on parents, and (5) parental expertise and involvement. Conclusions: Several barriers were identified by parents that interfered with treatment, including system-related challenges when accessing specialized eating disorders treatment, concerns about a lack of appropriate mental health support for their child, and difficulties with transitioning between community and tertiary level care. Negative emotions, including guilt and self-blame, were common early in the treatment journey. Parental involvement throughout treatment was associated with confidence at the time of their child’s discharge. The results of this study suggest the importance of early identification of eating disorder symptoms, facilitating smoother transitions between community services and specialized eating disorder care, and improving clinical decision-making to ensure children and adolescents with eating disorders receive the most appropriate treatment based on their clinical presentation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".