Acceptability of a personalised single-session feedback intervention for eating disorders: a qualitative content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders (EDs) are prevalent, serious conditions that often require specialised care. Barriers to treatment are numerous and include cost, waitlists, geographic limitations, and lack of services for earlier-stage illness. Single-session interventions (SSIs) hold promise as accessible, cost-effective approaches to support individuals with EDs who may otherwise be unable to access care. However, to ensure uptake and use in real-world contexts, SSIs must be acceptable to their target population. This qualitative study investigated the anticipated acceptability of an SSI for EDs that provides a personalised health reports and self-management resources. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 individuals with EDs (including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and avoidant restrictive food intake disorder; 15 women, 1 gender-nonconforming). Participants had previously participated in an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study of ED symptoms and correlates. Participants were queried about: (1) interest in receiving a personalised feedback SSI based on their EMA data, and (2) preferences and opinions on the format, content, and delivery of feedback. Anonymised transcripts were inductively coded and interpreted using content analysis in NVivo. Results were organised into seven themes, with 24 subthemes representing participant views and recommendations. All participants wanted to receive personalised health feedback. They anticipated multiple benefits, including personalisation, potential to increase self-awareness, accessibility, and ability to share feedback reports with healthcare providers. Challenges identified were the possibility of raising unpleasant emotions, and concerns about utility or safety of feedback to those with low insight and/or severe EDs. Participants preferred SSI content to be graphical, engaging, short-form, and in a gentle or neutral tone. Most participants expressed interest in receiving personalised self-management resources. Content analysis of qualitative interviews indicated that our sample of people with EDs would find receiving personalised health feedback and self-management resources in the form of an SSI to be helpful. Though participants were enthusiastic about receiving health data, given concerns about utility and potential harm, a considerate approach to providing ED-related feedback is necessary. Continued involvement of lived experience perspectives in shaping personalised ED interventions is recommended. Eating disorders (EDs) are serious and common, but accessing treatment is difficult due to cost, location, waitlists, and reservation of care for the most severe cases. Single-session interventions (SSIs) are one-session treatments that hold promise for improving access to healthcare, especially for those in earlier stages of illness. Personalised SSIs could address individual needs to provide the most help as efficiently as possible. However, it is important to understand whether people with EDs are receptive to personalisation and SSIs. This study interviewed 16 people with EDs about whether they would be interested in a personalised SSI. The SSI would provide feedback on a person’s ED symptoms and strategies to better understand their experience and support their recovery. Participants were receptive, stating they valued detailed information, that they would like actionable recommendations to care for their health, and that feedback could be shared with doctors and therapists to better support them. They were concerned that feedback could bring up shameful emotions, which for some, might trigger ED behaviours. Participants recommended that feedback be offered in various formats and conveyed in a gentle tone to accommodate different learning styles and reduce potential distress.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".