Relapse in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Individuals' Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Relapse is common in eating disorders (EDs); however, it has received significantly more attention within quantitative research. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative findings regarding the experiences of relapse for people with EDs. METHOD: A search for studies reporting qualitative data that included experiences of relapse in individuals with EDs was conducted. This included a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, SSCI, and PQDT Global along with supplementary searching. A total of 1594 titles and abstracts and 168 full texts were screened for eligibility. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Quality appraisal was conducted using the CASP checklist. Data were extracted from each paper and thematic synthesis of relevant data from study findings/discussion was completed in NVivo. RESULTS: Most included studies involved female participants in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom with anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Five analytical themes were generated: 1) "I wasn't letting go": Relapse as enticing; 2) "Bound to lose": Relapse as unstoppable; 3) "If the going gets tough I've always got this": Relapse as protective; 4) "Coming back with your tail between your legs": Relapse as destructive; 5) "So much of this journey … is learning": Relapse as instructive. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight the gap between psychological and behavioral improvements that precede relapse, and the contrasting ways relapse is described and experienced. They support a focus on motivational factors and underlying psychological difficulties in treatment, extending beyond a behavioral focus. Further research is needed to understand relapse experiences among males and individuals from the global majority. SUMMARY: Individuals with EDs who relapsed described desiring or feeling powerless to control relapse. Findings suggest the need for greater emphasis on developing intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in order to sustain recovery. Residual ED cognitions and unaddressed psychological vulnerabilities were implicated in relapse. Findings caution against premature discharge before sufficient cognitive and emotional progress has been made. In response to relapse, clinicians should aim to foster hope, compassion and tailor treatment to address the recovery needs revealed by relapse.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".