From fixing to connecting: parents’ experiences supporting adult children with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unlike evidence-based guidelines that exist for families of youth with eating disorders, little is known about the optimal role for families of adult patients. Given issues of patient autonomy and confidentiality, it is common for family members to report high levels of distress, confusion about how to offer support, and feelings of exclusion. Nevertheless, interactions with parents play a critical role in the recovery process. The purpose of this research was to increase understanding of support experiences of parents of adult children while identifying what they believe to be the most beneficial forms of support. METHODS: Sixteen parents of adults who were either recovered or actively engaged in intensive eating disorders treatment participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants were asked to describe the nature of their relationship, beliefs about their child's support needs, and factors that challenged or facilitated their capacity to offer what they deemed as optimal support. RESULTS: In the context of receiving support and practicing self-care, parents' aspiration shifted from fixing the eating disorder to prioritizing a relational goal of unrelenting connection with their child. Achieving this involved three key skills: managing reactions and expectations, learning boundaries, and practicing validation. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the ongoing challenges faced by parents, indicating that interventions aimed at supporting their own well-being and fostering connection with their child may be of benefit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".