Disturbed families or families disturbed: a reconsideration.

backgroundThe relationship between anorexia nervosa (AN) and family disturbance has been a subject of debate since its first description. What began as a clear view of the pathologically disturbed family causing AN has become ever more complex over the decades.

objectiveThe aim of this review is to explore the literature to examine the changes and evolution of clinical opinion around family dysfunction and AN over the last 20 years.

methodsA narrative review of heterogeneous studies in peer-reviewed publications sourced from the major databases, including PubMed and ScienceDirect, to illuminate the topic of family distress and AN by highlighting the conflicting and complementary ways it has been studied.

resultsThis review has highlighted the complexity of the relationship between anorectic sufferers and their families. It has explored the literature about parental burden, emotions and cognitive mechanisms together with parental attitudes about weight and shape. It is clear that there is no consistent psycho-social pathology in families which has been shown to be causative. However, over the last twenty years, research has highlighted the distress and family dysfunction caused by having to look after an anoretic child with poor mentalisation skills, insecure attachment and emotion dysregulation.

conclusionThe area has become clearer over the last 20 years; research suggests a bi-directional relationship between AN and family dysfunction, with difficult dynamics becoming entrenched within the family. This is best addressed, the consensus suggests, by specialist family therapy and carer skills interventions. Longitudinal research is needed to definitively answer the question with rigorous scientific certainty. EMB RATING: Level V. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I: Evidence obtained from: at least one properly designed randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; experimental studies. Level II: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. Level III: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies. Level IV: Evidence obtained from with multiple time series analysis such as case studies. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence. Level V: Opinions of respected authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.