Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: There has recently been a push for recovery-focused research in the eating disorder (ED) field, starting with a consensus definition of recovery. One definition, in particular, proposed by Bardone-Cone et al. [21] has received considerable attention given its transdiagnostic nature and validation studies. However, no studies to date have elicited lived experience views of this definition. The goal of the current study was to examine perspectives on this definition of recovery from individuals with a past or present ED and to determine whether participant agreement with the model differed based on diagnostic history or current symptom severity.
Methods: Sixty-two individuals (95.2% women; 91.9% White/European) participated in a 1-2 h interview aimed at capturing their perspectives on ED recovery. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and codebook thematic analysis to examine agreement with and thoughts on Bardone-Cone's definition of recovery, respectively. Chi-squared tests of independence and binary logistic regression were computed to determine whether agreement with the definition differed across diagnostic history and self-reported symptoms.
Results: Although some participants indicated acceptance of the definition, the majority expressed concerns related to its categorical nature, proposed criteria, feasibility, language, and applications. There were no differences in acceptance based on diagnostic history or current symptom severity.
Conclusion: A single definition of recovery does not seem to fit individuals' lived ED experience. Future research may benefit from distinguishing between recovery as an individually-defined phenomenon and related constructs such as remission (i.e., loss of diagnosis or absence of clinical symptoms). A more comprehensive multi-faceted, and person-centered model of recovery may have merit in clinical settings.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558402 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00670-2 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!