Pandemic impact, mitigation strategies and peer support: a qualitative analysis of youth, parent, clinician and administrator perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorder symptoms in youth, as well as the impact on care, and the possibility of peer support as a mitigating strategy from the perspectives of youth and parents with lived experience with eating disorders, as well as clinicians and administrators. A national purposive sample was recruited through websites and social media platforms. Those recruited were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire and to partake in an individual, virtual, semi-structured qualitative interview. Guided by a qualitative descriptive approach, interview data was transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Fifteen parents (93% female; age 48.9 ± 6.9 years), 14 youth (93% female; age 15.3 ± 1.2 years), 16 clinicians (93.8% female; age 41.19 ± 15.7) and 12 administrators (83.3% female; age 47.75 ± 12.2 years) participated. Thirteen parents (87%) said they would attend a parent peer support group and all 15 (100%) said it should be offered routinely in community and hospital settings delivering eating disorder care. Benefits and risks were discussed by participants. Youth, clinicians and administrators agreed that parental peer support groups would be helpful but were not as convinced that youth peer support groups would be beneficial to youth with eating disorders. Those with lived experience view parental peer support as beneficial and feel it should be offered routinely. Clinicians and administrators also voiced support for parental peer support with certain caveats regarding training and oversight. This study describes views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the possibility of peer support as a mitigating strategy from the perspectives of those with lived experience with eating disorders, as well as clinicians and administrators. Through qualitative interviews, those with lived experience view parental peer support as beneficial and feel it should be offered routinely. Clinicians and administrators voiced support with conditions of training and oversight.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".