Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36380392›Full record

ReviewJournal of eating disorders2022

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

Heather Hower, Andrea LaMarre, Rachel Bachner-Melman, Erin N Harrop, Beth McGilley, Therese E Kenny

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of eating disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Heather HowerDepartment of Psychiatry, Eating Disorders Center for Treatment and Research, University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, 4510 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA. Heather_Hower@Brown.edu.
Andrea LaMarreSchool of Psychology, Massey University, North Shore, Private Bag 102-904, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand.
Rachel Bachner-MelmanClinical Psychology Graduate Program, Ruppin Academic Center, 4025000, Emek-Hefer, Israel.
Erin N HarropGraduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, 2148 S High Street, Denver, CO, 80208, USA.
Beth McGilleyUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine, 1010 N Kansas St, Wichita, KS, 67214, USA.
Therese E KennyDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHow 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.

conclusionOur 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.

Indexed as

Eating disordersMulti-methods researchQualitative researchQuantitative researchRecovery

Identifiers

PMID36380392
PMCPMC9664434

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.