MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413140885 · doi:10.1186/s40337-025-01362-3

Exploring the ruling relations of eating disorder treatment in Ontario

2025· article· en· W4413140885 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Costantini, Carla Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEating disordersPolitical sciencePsychotherapistPsychiatryPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite nearly 50 years of calls for change, service users in eating disorder (ED) treatment too often continue to experience care as controlling under time-limited directive models, requiring compliance/adherence to rules that uphold a specific form of recovery. Recently the Government of Ontario released new quality standards for ED treatment, which promise to alter how the system operates. This has occurred against a backdrop of an unprecedented surge in the volume of people with EDs seeking help following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic which has deepened the strain on an already under-resourced treatment system. As such, we contend there is a need to explore how clinicians do carework in treatment spaces to better understand what organizational, procedural, and discursive factors coordinate/ regulate their capacities to care in the current moment and explore what new pathways might be forged. Taking an Institutional Ethnography (IE) approach, our study explores the ruling relations coordinating clinicians’ carework in Ontario inpatient, day-patient, and live-in ED treatment programs. Methods included in-depth interviews with six clinicians and textual analysis of core documents informing or directing treatment. Clinicians included one psychiatrist, two dieticians, one psychologist, one social worker, and one psychotherapist. Our analysis drew from accepted IE analytic procedures, and included indexing, mapping, and writing accounts. Our IE identifies a tension experienced by clinicians, particularly in publicly-funded treatment between their desire to practice collaborative care and the demand to enforce stringent mandates in an environment dominated by highly standardized, time-limited treatment directives that seek to ration care. We explicate how the discourses of care-as-cure and gold standard (evidence-based) treatment coordinate clinician’s carework in moments of treatment non-adherence, as they operate through practices of informal coercion and the broader politics of evidence-based research. As the first IE in the ED field, our work traces connections between practice, texts, and institutional discourses in a novel way, adding compelling findings to the limited Canadian ED treatment literature and the urgent need for change. Our IE findings underscore the need to de-centre biometrics and recentre relationality by developing alternative care pathways that attend to the diversity of service user needs and address gaps in care. Despite nearly 50 years of calls for change, eating disorder (ED) treatment in Canada and beyond has seen little meaningful change. In 2023, the Government of Ontario released new quality standards for ED treatment that offer a promise for change and improved outcomes. Our study explores how hospital mandates, evidence-based treatment guidelines, and cultural discourses influence and restrict the care practices of clinicians in ED treatment programs. Our findings show that clinicians often experience a tension between their desire to provide collaborative care and the mandate to ensure services users adhere to all rules. This can result in care practices that cause harm for both service users and clinicians. Our findings illustrate that forces far beyond individual clinicians influence such practices, requiring large-scale change. We identify the need to forge alternative care pathways in the current under-resourced and highly-standardized treatment system to ensure that all service users can find options for treatment that meet their varied needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207