ArticleJournal of eating disorders2025
Acceptability of a personalised single-session feedback intervention for eating disorders: a qualitative content analysis.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs) are prevalent, serious conditions that often require specialised care. Barriers to treatment are numerous and include cost, waitlists, geographic limitations, and lack of services for earlier-stage illness. Single-session interventions (SSIs) hold promise as accessible, cost-effective approaches to support individuals with EDs who may otherwise be unable to access care. However, to ensure uptake and use in real-world contexts, SSIs must be acceptable to their target population. This qualitative study investigated the anticipated acceptability of an SSI for EDs that provides a personalised health reports and self-management resources.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 16 individuals with EDs (including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and avoidant restrictive food intake disorder; 15 women, 1 gender-nonconforming). Participants had previously participated in an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study of ED symptoms and correlates. Participants were queried about: (1) interest in receiving a personalised feedback SSI based on their EMA data, and (2) preferences and opinions on the format, content, and delivery of feedback. Anonymised transcripts were inductively coded and interpreted using content analysis in NVivo.
resultsResults were organised into seven themes, with 24 subthemes representing participant views and recommendations. All participants wanted to receive personalised health feedback. They anticipated multiple benefits, including personalisation, potential to increase self-awareness, accessibility, and ability to share feedback reports with healthcare providers. Challenges identified were the possibility of raising unpleasant emotions, and concerns about utility or safety of feedback to those with low insight and/or severe EDs. Participants preferred SSI content to be graphical, engaging, short-form, and in a gentle or neutral tone. Most participants expressed interest in receiving personalised self-management resources.
conclusionsContent analysis of qualitative interviews indicated that our sample of people with EDs would find receiving personalised health feedback and self-management resources in the form of an SSI to be helpful. Though participants were enthusiastic about receiving health data, given concerns about utility and potential harm, a considerate approach to providing ED-related feedback is necessary. Continued involvement of lived experience perspectives in shaping personalised ED interventions is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.