Clinical Experiences Using Family Based Treatment for Eating Disorders.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Ayla N Gioia, Cate Morales, Agatha A Laboe, Sarah C Dolan, Erin E Reilly
{"title":"Clinical Experiences Using Family Based Treatment for Eating Disorders.","authors":"Ayla N Gioia, Cate Morales, Agatha A Laboe, Sarah C Dolan, Erin E Reilly","doi":"10.1002/eat.24373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite the availability of several evidence-based treatments for eating disorders (EDs), including Family-Based Treatment (FBT), therapist drift from evidence-based treatments in real-life clinical settings is common. This study explores clinicians' use of FBT techniques and identifies clinician-reported barriers to their use in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians (N = 54) who self-identified as using FBT for EDs were recruited through social media, professional listservs, and mental health provider databases. Participants completed an online survey comprised of questions developed alongside ED researchers (n = 5). Questions included quantitative self-rating of frequency of FBT technique use and usefulness, limitations of the treatment, and barriers to effective implementation of FBT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Descriptive statistics indicated frequent use of most FBT techniques (i.e., Ms > 75 on scales ranging from 0 [never use] to 100 [always use]). On a scale from 0 (not at all a barrier) to 100 (a major barrier), ratings of FBT barriers ranged from 25.07 (i.e., caregiver motivation decreases when learning reasons for ED) to 80.70 (i.e., low time resources). Regarding limitations of FBT, between 37% and 42.6% of participants indicated challenges in establishing an alliance with youth and validating their experiences as barriers to treatment success.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Overall, clinicians reported frequent use of FBT techniques. Barriers that received higher mean ratings included items related to emotional processes experienced by caregivers, caregiver/patient beliefs related to weight stigma/diet culture, resource and time-related constraints, and challenges with caregiver buy-in/beliefs about treatment. Future research should explore ways to adapt FBT to address these barriers within naturalistic settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24373","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Despite the availability of several evidence-based treatments for eating disorders (EDs), including Family-Based Treatment (FBT), therapist drift from evidence-based treatments in real-life clinical settings is common. This study explores clinicians' use of FBT techniques and identifies clinician-reported barriers to their use in real-world settings.

Methods: Clinicians (N = 54) who self-identified as using FBT for EDs were recruited through social media, professional listservs, and mental health provider databases. Participants completed an online survey comprised of questions developed alongside ED researchers (n = 5). Questions included quantitative self-rating of frequency of FBT technique use and usefulness, limitations of the treatment, and barriers to effective implementation of FBT.

Results: Descriptive statistics indicated frequent use of most FBT techniques (i.e., Ms > 75 on scales ranging from 0 [never use] to 100 [always use]). On a scale from 0 (not at all a barrier) to 100 (a major barrier), ratings of FBT barriers ranged from 25.07 (i.e., caregiver motivation decreases when learning reasons for ED) to 80.70 (i.e., low time resources). Regarding limitations of FBT, between 37% and 42.6% of participants indicated challenges in establishing an alliance with youth and validating their experiences as barriers to treatment success.

Discussion: Overall, clinicians reported frequent use of FBT techniques. Barriers that received higher mean ratings included items related to emotional processes experienced by caregivers, caregiver/patient beliefs related to weight stigma/diet culture, resource and time-related constraints, and challenges with caregiver buy-in/beliefs about treatment. Future research should explore ways to adapt FBT to address these barriers within naturalistic settings.

以家庭为基础治疗饮食失调的临床经验。
目的:尽管有几种基于证据的治疗饮食失调(EDs)的方法,包括基于家庭的治疗(FBT),但在现实生活的临床环境中,治疗师偏离循证治疗是很常见的。本研究探讨了临床医生对FBT技术的使用,并确定了临床医生报告的在现实环境中使用FBT技术的障碍。方法:通过社交媒体、专业列表服务和心理健康提供者数据库招募自认使用FBT治疗急症的临床医生(N = 54)。参与者完成了一份在线调查,包括与ED研究人员一起开发的问题(n = 5)。问题包括FBT技术使用频率和有用性的定量自评,治疗的局限性,以及有效实施FBT的障碍。结果:描述性统计表明,大多数FBT技术的使用频率较高(即,从0(从不使用)到100(总是使用)的评分范围为bbb75)。在从0(完全不是障碍)到100(主要障碍)的量表上,FBT障碍的评分范围从25.07(即,当学习ED的原因时,照顾者的动机降低)到80.70(即,时间资源不足)。关于FBT的局限性,37%至42.6%的参与者表示,在与年轻人建立联盟以及确认他们的经验是治疗成功的障碍方面存在挑战。讨论:总的来说,临床医生报告了FBT技术的频繁使用。获得较高平均评分的障碍包括与护理人员经历的情绪过程相关的项目,与体重耻辱/饮食文化相关的护理人员/患者信念,与资源和时间相关的限制,以及护理人员对治疗的信任/信念的挑战。未来的研究应该探索适应FBT的方法,以在自然环境中解决这些障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信