“I’m not alone”: a qualitative report of experiences among parents of children with eating disorders attending virtual parent-led peer support groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment for children with eating disorders (EDs) requires extensive involvement of parents. The parents of children with EDs have voiced a need for greater support, including connecting with other parents with lived experience of caring for a child with an ED. We aimed to qualitatively explore parental experiences of these groups, including their benefits and areas for improvement. METHODS: This study examined the delivery of four virtual parent-led peer support groups in Ontario, Canada for parents of children with EDs with approximately 10 parent participants per group and two parent facilitators leading each group. Parents (n = 44) were asked to attend 12 bi-weekly support group sessions over 6 months, and then complete an individual end-of-study qualitative interview. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis, following the qualitative description design. RESULTS: Thirty-six parents completed the end-of-study qualitative interview. Participants shared their experiences and impressions related to the group's structure and content. Notable helpful aspects of the group included being able to receive support from those with similar experiences, access to education and resources about EDs, and being able to support others. Suggestions for improvements were made, which included organizing groups according to the child's ED diagnosis or duration of illness. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that this intervention is acceptable to parents and is perceived as helpful. Future research is needed to strengthen this support group model and to study its effects for parents in different settings and for parents of children with various EDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04686864.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".