Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33761183›Full record

ArticlePsychology and psychotherapy2021

Service user and eating disorder therapist views on anorexia nervosa recovery criteria.

Sarah McDonald, A Jess Williams, Phoebe Barr, Niamh McNamara, Mike Marriott

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recovery From Anorexia Nervosa: A Concept Analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah McDonaldDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3524-1782
A Jess WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3987-3824
Phoebe BarrDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK.
Niamh McNamaraDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3123-3678
Mike MarriottDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7743-5262
Nottingham Trent University · GBNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecovery from anorexia nervosa (AN) is difficult to define, and efforts to establish recovery criteria have led to several versions being proposed. Using the perspectives of people with histories of AN and therapists working in the field, we sought to explore the face validity of Khalsa et al (2017) as one of the most recent examples of proposed systematic recovery criteria.

designWe interviewed 11 health service users (SUs) with histories of AN who had previously received treatment alongside 8 eating disorder therapists (EDTs), exploring their views on the proposed AN recovery criteria.

methodsData from verbal and written interviews were analysed thematically. Separate thematic analyses of SU and EDT interviews highlighted where concerns converged and diverged across participants.

resultsBoth groups saw some merits of having universally recognized recovery criteria, and the multidimensional approach was welcomed, but EDTs were uncomfortable with considering their use in therapy and SUs felt key components were missing around emotional coping and life quality. SUs disliked the prominence of body mass index (BMI) in the criteria, and all struggled with the proposed duration for recovery. Conceptually, the notion of recovery as an endpoint rather than a journey was contested.

conclusionsOur findings indicate disparities between academically derived recovery criteria and lived experiences and indicate perceived challenges in using such criteria in therapeutic settings. Including SUs and EDTs in the development of criteria may improve the likelihood of consolidating AN recovery criteria, but conceptual challenges remain. PRACTITIONER POINTS: AN recovery is complex, and the use of research-based AN recovery criteria in therapeutic settings could have a detrimental effect on SUs' outcomes. EDTs should be aware of efforts to define AN recovery criteria. EDTs should engage with debates on defining AN recovery and seek to promote participation in such debates to SUs.

Indexed as

Anorexia NervosaFeeding and Eating DisordersEmotionsHumansQuality of Lifeanorexia nervosaqualitative researchrecovery criteriaservice userstherapists

Identifiers

PMID33761183
PMCPMC8451855
OpenAlexW3138849829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.