Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34863276›Full record

ReviewJournal of eating disorders2021

Experiences of eating disorders from the perspectives of patients, family members and health care professionals: a meta-review of qualitative evidence syntheses.

Sanna Aila Gustafsson, Karin Stenström, Hanna Olofsson, Agneta Pettersson, Karin Wilbe Ramsay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of eating disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A Deleuzian Examination of Anorexia & Recovery: Opening up Possibilities for Conceptualizing Care.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Sanna Aila GustafssonSchool of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University, University Health Care Research Center, 701 82, Örebro, Sweden. sanna.aila-gustafsson@regionorebrolan.se.
Karin StenströmSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, P.O. Box 6183, 102 33, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna OlofssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, P.O. Box 6183, 102 33, Stockholm, Sweden.
Agneta PetterssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, P.O. Box 6183, 102 33, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karin Wilbe RamsaySwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, P.O. Box 6183, 102 33, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6161-9032

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEating disorders are serious conditions that cause major suffering for patients and their families. Better knowledge about perceptions of eating disorders and their treatment, and which factors that facilitate or hinder recovery, is desired in order to develop the clinical work. We aimed to explore and synthesise experiences of eating disorders from the perspectives of those suffering from an eating disorder, their family members and health care professionals through an overarching meta-review of systematic reviews in the field.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of qualitative research on experiences, perceptions, needs, or desires related to eating disorders from the perspective of patients, family members or health care professionals. Systematic reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were assessed for relevance and methodological limitations by at least two researchers independently. The key findings were analysed and synthesised into themes.

resultsWe identified 17 systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 reviews reported on the patients' perspective, five on the family members' perspective, and three on the health care professionals' perspective. The study population in the reviews was predominantly girls and young women with anorexia nervosa, whilst systematic reviews focusing on other eating disorders were scarce. The findings regarding each of the three perspectives resulted in themes that could be synthesised into three overarching themes: 1) being in control or being controlled, 2) balancing physical recovery and psychological needs, and 3) trusting relationships.

conclusionsThere were several similarities between the views of patients, family members and health care professionals, especially regarding the significance of building trustful therapeutic alliances that also included family members. However, the informants sometimes differed in their views, particularly on the use of the biomedical model, which was seen as helpful by health care professionals, while patients and family members felt that it failed to address their psychological distress. Acknowledging these differences is important for the understanding of anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders, and may help clinicians to broaden treatment approaches to meet the expectations of patients and family members.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaEating disordersEvidence synthesisMeta-reviewMeta-synthesisQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34863276
PMCPMC8642844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.