进食障碍康复的治疗目标和策略:与生活经验者、照顾者、研究人员和临床医生达成的德尔菲共识。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Lauren Hanegraaf, Alexandra Anderson, Erica Neill, Emily Giddens, Evelyn Boon, Emma Bryant, Shannon Calvert, Bronwyn Carroll, Fernando Fernandez-Aranda, Sam Ikin, Maya Luna, Fiona Mitchell, Rebecca Murphy, Andrea Phillipou, Julian Robinson, Christina Wierenga, Simon Wilksch, Sarah Maguire, Antonio Verdejo-Garcia
{"title":"进食障碍康复的治疗目标和策略:与生活经验者、照顾者、研究人员和临床医生达成的德尔菲共识。","authors":"Lauren Hanegraaf,&nbsp;Alexandra Anderson,&nbsp;Erica Neill,&nbsp;Emily Giddens,&nbsp;Evelyn Boon,&nbsp;Emma Bryant,&nbsp;Shannon Calvert,&nbsp;Bronwyn Carroll,&nbsp;Fernando Fernandez-Aranda,&nbsp;Sam Ikin,&nbsp;Maya Luna,&nbsp;Fiona Mitchell,&nbsp;Rebecca Murphy,&nbsp;Andrea Phillipou,&nbsp;Julian Robinson,&nbsp;Christina Wierenga,&nbsp;Simon Wilksch,&nbsp;Sarah Maguire,&nbsp;Antonio Verdejo-Garcia","doi":"10.1002/eat.24304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Long-term recovery rates following eating disorders (EDs) treatment remain low. This might be partly due to a lack of agreement between key stakeholder groups, including people with lived experience, carers, clinicians, and researchers, regarding optimal therapeutic targets and strategies. We aimed to reach a consensus across these diverse groups on the most valued treatment targets and strategies for fostering ED recovery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We used the Delphi method with two phases: (i) Survey development and (ii) Expert rating. The survey development phase included the design of an initial set of items through scoping review and feedback from a committee of 14 experts. During the survey rating, we engaged a larger panel of 185 experts who comprised the stakeholder groups: Individuals with lived ED experience (<i>n</i> = 49), carers (<i>n</i> = 44), researchers (<i>n</i> = 46), and clinicians (<i>n</i> = 46).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-one targets and 29 strategies reached consensus (&gt; 70% agreement over three rounds). Psychological-emotional–social targets including quality of life, sense of purpose, and emotion regulation, along with ED behaviors, reached the highest agreement (&gt; 90%). Strategies reflecting an individualized approach to treatment (i.e., considering diversity, assessing comorbidities, and enhancing rapport) achieved the highest agreement (&gt; 90%). Responses across groups were similar, except researchers leaning more towards consideration of weight- and eating-related targets.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Holistic targets and individualized therapeutic strategies have consistent support from the different stakeholder groups involved in ED treatment. The agreed set of targets/strategies may be used, in triangulation with other sources of evidence, to design and evaluate coproduced and personalized interventions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":"57 12","pages":"2494-2507"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eat.24304","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment Targets and Strategies for Eating Disorders Recovery: A Delphi Consensus With Lived Experience, Carers, Researchers, and Clinicians\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Hanegraaf,&nbsp;Alexandra Anderson,&nbsp;Erica Neill,&nbsp;Emily Giddens,&nbsp;Evelyn Boon,&nbsp;Emma Bryant,&nbsp;Shannon Calvert,&nbsp;Bronwyn Carroll,&nbsp;Fernando Fernandez-Aranda,&nbsp;Sam Ikin,&nbsp;Maya Luna,&nbsp;Fiona Mitchell,&nbsp;Rebecca Murphy,&nbsp;Andrea Phillipou,&nbsp;Julian Robinson,&nbsp;Christina Wierenga,&nbsp;Simon Wilksch,&nbsp;Sarah Maguire,&nbsp;Antonio Verdejo-Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>Long-term recovery rates following eating disorders (EDs) treatment remain low. This might be partly due to a lack of agreement between key stakeholder groups, including people with lived experience, carers, clinicians, and researchers, regarding optimal therapeutic targets and strategies. We aimed to reach a consensus across these diverse groups on the most valued treatment targets and strategies for fostering ED recovery.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We used the Delphi method with two phases: (i) Survey development and (ii) Expert rating. The survey development phase included the design of an initial set of items through scoping review and feedback from a committee of 14 experts. During the survey rating, we engaged a larger panel of 185 experts who comprised the stakeholder groups: Individuals with lived ED experience (<i>n</i> = 49), carers (<i>n</i> = 44), researchers (<i>n</i> = 46), and clinicians (<i>n</i> = 46).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty-one targets and 29 strategies reached consensus (&gt; 70% agreement over three rounds). Psychological-emotional–social targets including quality of life, sense of purpose, and emotion regulation, along with ED behaviors, reached the highest agreement (&gt; 90%). Strategies reflecting an individualized approach to treatment (i.e., considering diversity, assessing comorbidities, and enhancing rapport) achieved the highest agreement (&gt; 90%). Responses across groups were similar, except researchers leaning more towards consideration of weight- and eating-related targets.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Holistic targets and individualized therapeutic strategies have consistent support from the different stakeholder groups involved in ED treatment. The agreed set of targets/strategies may be used, in triangulation with other sources of evidence, to design and evaluate coproduced and personalized interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\"57 12\",\"pages\":\"2494-2507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eat.24304\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24304\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24304","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

摘要

目的:饮食失调症(EDs)治疗后的长期康复率仍然很低。其部分原因可能是主要利益相关群体(包括有生活经验者、护理者、临床医生和研究人员)对最佳治疗目标和策略缺乏共识。我们的目标是让这些不同的群体就促进 ED 恢复的最有价值的治疗目标和策略达成共识:我们采用德尔菲法,分为两个阶段:(i) 调查开发阶段和 (ii) 专家评级阶段。调查开发阶段包括通过范围审查和由 14 位专家组成的委员会提供的反馈意见设计一套初步的项目。在调查评级期间,我们邀请了由 185 位专家组成的更大范围的利益相关者小组:有 ED 生活经验的个人(49 人)、护理人员(44 人)、研究人员(46 人)和临床医生(46 人):结果:31 项目标和 29 项策略达成了共识(三轮共识率大于 70%)。包括生活质量、目标感和情绪调节在内的心理-情感-社会目标以及 ED 行为的共识度最高(> 90%)。反映个体化治疗方法的策略(即考虑多样性、评估合并症和增强亲和力)的一致性最高(> 90%)。除了研究人员更倾向于考虑与体重和饮食相关的目标外,各组的反应相似:讨论:整体目标和个性化治疗策略得到了参与 ED 治疗的不同利益相关群体的一致支持。在与其他证据来源进行三角测量时,可以使用商定的目标/策略集来设计和评估共同制定的个性化干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Treatment Targets and Strategies for Eating Disorders Recovery: A Delphi Consensus With Lived Experience, Carers, Researchers, and Clinicians

Treatment Targets and Strategies for Eating Disorders Recovery: A Delphi Consensus With Lived Experience, Carers, Researchers, and Clinicians

Objective

Long-term recovery rates following eating disorders (EDs) treatment remain low. This might be partly due to a lack of agreement between key stakeholder groups, including people with lived experience, carers, clinicians, and researchers, regarding optimal therapeutic targets and strategies. We aimed to reach a consensus across these diverse groups on the most valued treatment targets and strategies for fostering ED recovery.

Method

We used the Delphi method with two phases: (i) Survey development and (ii) Expert rating. The survey development phase included the design of an initial set of items through scoping review and feedback from a committee of 14 experts. During the survey rating, we engaged a larger panel of 185 experts who comprised the stakeholder groups: Individuals with lived ED experience (n = 49), carers (n = 44), researchers (n = 46), and clinicians (n = 46).

Results

Thirty-one targets and 29 strategies reached consensus (> 70% agreement over three rounds). Psychological-emotional–social targets including quality of life, sense of purpose, and emotion regulation, along with ED behaviors, reached the highest agreement (> 90%). Strategies reflecting an individualized approach to treatment (i.e., considering diversity, assessing comorbidities, and enhancing rapport) achieved the highest agreement (> 90%). Responses across groups were similar, except researchers leaning more towards consideration of weight- and eating-related targets.

Discussion

Holistic targets and individualized therapeutic strategies have consistent support from the different stakeholder groups involved in ED treatment. The agreed set of targets/strategies may be used, in triangulation with other sources of evidence, to design and evaluate coproduced and personalized interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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