Involuntary treatment: A qualitative study from the perspectives of individuals with anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Involuntary treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN) is sometimes necessary and lifesaving but can be experienced negatively by some individuals. The purpose of this qualitative study was to better understand participants' perceptions about their experience with involuntary treatment for AN. METHOD: Thirty adult participants, who had been treated involuntarily for AN in the past, completed self-report measures and qualitative interviews. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) mixed perceptions about involuntary treatment, (2) the impact of involuntary treatment on external factors, including relationships, education, and employment, and (3) lessons learned from the experience. Participants who endorsed a positive shift in perspective regarding the need for involuntary treatment also reported favorable changes in their eating disorder recovery, whereas individuals whose perspective about their involuntary treatment remained negative, showed no changes in their recovery post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Involuntary treatment for AN was recognized, in retrospect, as being beneficial by individuals with AN who were doing well, but individuals who continued to struggle with their eating disorder reported negative consequences.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".