Attitudes towards eating disorders clinicians with personal experience of an eating disorder.

PURPOSE: This study explores the perspectives and opinions towards ED clinicians with lived experience of ED. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-five ED clinicians and 124 non-clinicians from 13 countries, between 18 and 76 years of age completed an online survey about attitudes towards ED clinicians with a personal ED history. Almost half the respondents (n = 242, 47.5%) reported a lifetime ED diagnosis. Survey items included ten multiple-choice and three open questions about clinician disclosure, employer hiring practices, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of clinicians with a personal ED history practicing in the ED field. Multiple-choice responses from clinicians with and without a personal ED history were compared with responses from non-clinicians with and without a personal ED history. Open questions were examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians with no ED history, whose responses often differed from both ED-history groups (clinicians and non-clinicians), were more likely to indicate that clinicians with an ED should not generally treat ED patients, and that clinicians should self-disclose their ED history to employers but not to their patients. Thematic analysis of the open-ended questions revealed that advantages of having clinicians with an ED history include a deep experiential understanding and the ability to be empathic and non-judgmental, whereas disadvantages include the lack of objectivity and the risk of clinicians being triggered. CONCLUSION: Further research informing guidelines for ED clinicians with a personal ED history, their colleagues and employers are needed to protect and empower the significant minority of ED professionals with "lived experience" of EDs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control analytic study.

It's not all about control: challenging mainstream framing of eating disorders.

BACKGROUND: The concept of control has long been suggested as a central factor in eating disorder (ED) aetiology. The concept is now so mainstream that it risks being used in a potentially reductionist, stigmatising or otherwise harmful manner. In this paper, we explore and discuss our positions on the use of control-related terminology for EDs. METHODS: The authors of this auto-ethnographic position paper include academic researchers, individuals with lived experience and clinicians (not mutually exclusive). In sharing our experiences and observations, we aim to raise awareness of the wider impacts that control framing can have on ED perceptions, treatment, recovery and individuals' lived experience. RESULTS: We argue that although control can play a role in some ED experiences, an overemphasis upon this factor to the exclusion of other conceptualisations is not beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate against pathologisation of an individual, it is important to challenge a discourse that can lead to EDs being perceived as something 'wrong' with the individual, rather than a consequence of life events or other environmental influences. We identify priorities for the future for researchers, clinicians, policy makers and the wider public.

Control has often been described as a central factor within Eating Disorders (EDs). Whilst control can play a role in ED experiences, we argue that overemphasis upon this factor can result in other important factors being overlooked. For many individuals, EDs are the consequence of life events and/or other environmental influences. With this in mind, discourse which overemphasises control (e.g., rather than coping) can inaccurately portray EDs as something 'wrong' with the individual. It is important to challenge this discourse to encourage more appropriate perceptions of EDs. In turn, this could improve understanding and treatment of EDs, reduce stigma, and promote recovery.

Conceptualizing eating disorder recovery research: Current perspectives and future research directions.

BACKGROUND: How we research eating disorder (ED) recovery impacts what we know (perceive as fact) about it. Traditionally, research has focused more on the "what" of recovery (e.g., establishing criteria for recovery, reaching consensus definitions) than the "how" of recovery research (e.g., type of methodologies, triangulation of perspectives). In this paper we aim to provide an overview of the ED field's current perspectives on recovery, discuss how our methodologies shape what is known about recovery, and suggest a broadening of our methodological "toolkits" in order to form a more complete picture of recovery. BODY: This paper examines commonly used methodologies in research, and explores how incorporating different perspectives can add to our understanding of the recovery process. To do this, we (1) provide an overview of commonly used methodologies (quantitative, qualitative), (2) consider their benefits and limitations, (3) explore newer approaches, including mixed-methods, creative methods (e.g., Photovoice, digital storytelling), and multi-methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, creative methods, psycho/physiological, behavioral, laboratory, online observations), and (4) suggest that broadening our methodological "toolkits" could spur more nuanced and specific insights about ED recoveries. We propose a potential future research model that would ideally have a multi-methods design, incorporate different perspectives (e.g., expanding recruitment of diverse participants, including supportive others, in study co-creation), and a longitudinal course (e.g., capturing cognitive and emotional recovery, which often comes after physical). In this way, we hope to move the field towards different, more comprehensive, perspectives on ED recovery. CONCLUSION: Our current perspectives on studying ED recovery leave critical gaps in our knowledge about the process. The traditional research methodologies impact our conceptualization of recovery definitions, and in turn limit our understanding of the phenomenon. We suggest that we expand our range of methodologies, perspectives, and timeframes in research, in order to form a more complete picture of what is possible in recovery; the multiple aspects of an individual's life that can improve, the greater number of people who can recover than previously believed, and the reaffirmation of hope that, even after decades, individuals can begin, and successfully continue, their ED recovery process.

How we research eating disorder (ED) recovery impacts what we know (perceive as fact) about it. In this paper we aim to provide an overview of the ED field's current perspectives on recovery, discuss how our methodologies shape what is known about recovery, and suggest a broadening of our methodological "toolkits" in order to form a more complete picture of recovery. To do this, we (1) provide an overview of commonly used methodologies (quantitative, qualitative), (2) consider their benefits and limitations, (3) explore newer approaches, including mixed-methods, creative methods (e.g., Photovoice, digital storytelling), and multi-methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, creative methods, psycho/physiological, behavioral, laboratory, online observations), and (4) propose a potential future research model with a multi-methods design, incorporating different perspectives (e.g., increasing recruitment of diverse participants, including supportive others in study co-creation), and a longitudinal course (e.g., capturing cognitive recovery, which often comes after physical). In this way, we seek to expand our picture of what is possible in recovery; the multiple aspects of an individual's life that can improve, the greater number of people who can recover than previously believed, and the reaffirmation of hope that, even after decades, individuals can begin and continue their ED recovery process.

The legacy of hope summit: a consensus-based initiative and report on eating disorders in the U.S. and recommendations for the path forward.

BACKGROUND: Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to reach a cross-disciplinary consensus on issues fundamental to the field of eating disorders in the United States (U.S.). In January 2020, 25 prominent clinicians, academicians, researchers, persons with lived experience, and thought leaders in the U.S. eating disorders community gathered at the Legacy of Hope Summit to try again. This paper articulates the points on which they reached a consensus. It also: (1) outlines strategies for implementing those recommendations; (2) identifies likely obstacles to their implementation; and (3) charts a course for successfully navigating and overcoming those challenges. METHODS: Iterative and consensual processes were employed throughout the Summit and the development of this manuscript. RESULTS: The conclusion of the Summit culminated in several consensus points, including: (1) Eating disorder outcomes and prevention efforts can be improved by implementing creative health education initiatives that focus on societal perceptions, early detection, and timely, effective intervention; (2) Such initiatives should be geared toward parents/guardians, families, other caretakers, and frontline healthcare providers in order to maximize impact; (3) Those afflicted with eating disorders, their loved ones, and the eating disorders community as a whole would benefit from greater accessibility to affordable, quality care, as well as greater transparency and accountability on the part of in-hospital, residential, and outpatient health care providers with respect to their qualifications, methodologies, and standardized outcomes; (4) Those with lived experience with eating disorders, their loved ones, health care providers, and the eating disorders community as a whole, also would benefit from the establishment and maintenance of treatment program accreditation, professional credentialing, and treatment type and levels of care guidelines; and (5) The establishment and implementation of effective, empirically/evidence-based standards of care requires research across a diverse range of populations, adequate private and government funding, and the free exchange of ideas and information among all who share a commitment to understanding, treating, and, ultimately, markedly diminishing the negative impact of eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread uptake and implementation of these recommendations has the potential to unify and advance the eating disorders field and ultimately improve the lives of those affected. A cross-disciplinary group of eating disorder professionals, thought leaders, and persons with lived experience have come together and reached a consensus on issues that are fundamental to the battle against the life-threatening and life-altering illnesses that are eating spectrum disorders. Those issues include: (1) the need for early detection, intervention, prevention, and evidenced-based standards of care; (2) the critical need to make specialized care more accessible and affordable to all those in need; (3) the importance of developing uniform, evidenced-based standards of care; (4) the need for funding and conducting eating spectrum disorder research; and (5) the indispensability of advocacy, education, and legislation where these illnesses are concerned. During the consensus process, the authors also arrived at strategies for implementing their recommendations, identified likely obstacles to their implementation, and charted a course for successfully navigating and overcoming those challenges. Above all else, the authors demonstrated that consensus in the field of eating spectrum disorders is possible and achievable and, in doing so, lit a torch of hope that is certain to light the path forward for years to come.