Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31530301›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2019

Current eating disorder healthcare services - the perspectives and experiences of individuals with eating disorders, their families and health professionals: systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Gemma Johns, Bridget Taylor, Ann John, Jacinta Tan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Design, Implement, Sustain: Advancing Program-Led Interventions for Binge Eating, a Narrative Review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gemma JohnsResearch Assistant, School of Medicine, Swansea University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-4822
Bridget TaylorRetired Psychiatric Nurse and currently a Lay Representative, Department of Medicine, Swansea University, UK.
Ann JohnProfessor in Public Health and Psychiatry, Population Psychiatry, Suicide and Informatics, Swansea University Medical School, UK.
Jacinta TanClinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Swansea University, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEating disorders have the highest mortality rate of mental disorders and a high incidence of morbidity, but if diagnosed and treated promptly individuals can benefit from full recovery. However, there are numerous problems at the healthcare interface (i.e. primary and secondary care) for eating disorders. It is important to examine these to facilitate appropriate, seamless treatment and improve access to specialist care.

aimsTo examine the current literature on the experiences and perspectives of those across healthcare interfaces for eating disorders, to include individuals with eating disorders, people close to or caring for those with eating disorders such as family and friends, and health professionals.

methodTo identify relevant papers, a systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Other methods, including hand-searching, scanning reference lists and internet resources were also used. Papers that met inclusion criteria were analysed using a systematic methodology and synthesised using an interpretative thematic approach.

resultsSixty-three papers met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was relatively good. The included papers were of both qualitative (n = 44) and quantitative studies (n = 24) and were from ten different countries. By synthesising the literature of these papers, three dominant themes were identified, with additional subthemes. These included: 'the help-seeking process at primary care'; 'expectations of care and appropriate referrals' and 'opposition and collaboration in the treatment of and recovery from eating disorders'.

conclusionsThis review identifies both facilitators and barriers in eating disorder healthcare, from the perspectives of those experiencing the interface first hand. The review provides recommendations for future research and practice. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

Indexed as

Eating disordershealthcare interfacepatients and carerssystematic reviewthematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID31530301
PMCPMC6646967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.