Weight restoration in adolescent anorexia: parents’ goal-directed processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parent-led weight restoration is a key intervention of family-based treatment, an empirically supported treatment for adolescent anorexia. Successful outcomes in family-based treatment depend almost entirely on parental action, yet current understandings of this intervention are primarily informed by professional theory and expert perspectives. Comparatively little is known about parents' goals and actions while implementing the treatment, despite goal-directed action being an explicit framework of family-based treatment. This study seeks to investigate parents' involvement in weight restoration from the perspective of the goal-directed actions they construct and engage in themselves and with others. This study focuses on the phenomenon of parent-led weight restoration as a project and addresses the following research question: "How do parents participate in the weight restoration of their adolescent as the adolescent recovers from anorexia nervosa?". METHOD: This multicase study used the action project method and conceptual framework of contextual action theory to examine four cases of five parents engaged in actions to help their adolescent regain weight and recover from anorexia. Data were collected using multi-part interviews and analyzed according to the action project method and the multicase approach. RESULTS: Parents' weight restoration projects were identified and grouped based on three common a themes. The primary theme, progressing toward health and well-being, was supported by three key processes: maintaining a holistic focus, trusting, and monitoring progress. Two secondary themes captured actions that were integral to the parents' projects, but with less prominence. Secondary themes were creating capacity, which was supported by three processes (managing emotions to maintain a helpful focus, personal work, and resourcing time and finances), and coordinating and negotiating partnerships. The socio-cultural valuing of the thin ideal emerged as a unique process salient in one case. This study presents a goal-directed and contextual perspective on how parents translated the principles of family-based treatment into their daily lives. It joins a small but growing body of work concerned with generating new understandings and frameworks for practitioners and researchers to enhance the effectiveness of family-based treatment in community settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".