A qualitative evaluation of team and family perceptions of family-based treatment delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) for adolescent Anorexia Nervosa during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient eating disorder care, including Family-Based Treatment (FBT), rapidly transitioned from in-person to virtual delivery in many programs. This paper reports on the experiences of teams and families with FBT delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) who were part of a larger implementation study. METHODS: Four pediatric eating disorder programs in Ontario, Canada, including their therapists (n = 8), medical practitioners (n = 4), administrators (n = 6), and families (n = 5), participated in our study. We provided FBT-V training and delivered clinical consultation. Therapists recorded and submitted their first four FBT-V sessions. Focus groups were conducted with teams and families at each site after the first four FBT-V sessions. Focus group transcripts were transcribed verbatim and key concepts were identified through line-by-line reading and categorizing of the text. All transcripts were double-coded. Focus group data were analyzed using directed and summative qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of focus group data from teams and families revealed four overarching categories-pros of FBT-V, cons of FBT-V, FBT-V process, and suggestions for enhancing and improving FBT-V. Pros included being able to treat more patients and developing a better understanding of family dynamics by being virtually invited into the family's home (identified by teams), as well as convenience and comfort (identified by families). Both teams and families recognized technical difficulties as a potential con of FBT-V, yet teams also commented on distractions in family homes as a con, while families expressed difficulties in developing therapeutic rapport. Regarding FBT-V process, teams and families discussed the importance and challenge of patient weighing at home. In terms of suggestions for improvement, teams proposed assessing a family's suitability or motivation for FBT-V to ensure it would be appropriate, while families strongly suggested implementing hybrid models of FBT in the future which would include some in-person and some virtual sessions. CONCLUSION: Team and family perceptions of FBT-V were generally positive, indicating acceptability and feasibility of this treatment. Suggestions for improved FBT-V practices were made by both groups, and require future investigation, such as examining hybrid models of FBT that involve in-person and virtual elements. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04678843 .
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 | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".