How do you define recovery? A qualitative study of patients with eating disorders, their parents, and clinicians

• Published in: The International journal of eating disorders 2020-08, Vol.53 (8), p.1209-1218
• Main Authors: Richmond, Tracy K., Woolverton, G. Alice, Mammel, Kathy, Ornstein, Rollyn M., Spalding, Allegra, Woods, Elizabeth R., Forman, Sara F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; behaviors; Child; Children & youth; cognitions; Eating disorders; Feeding and Eating Disorders - diagnosis; Female; Humans; Male; Parents; Parents & parenting; Physicians; Qualitative Research; recovery; weight restoration; Well being; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0276-3478; 1098-108X
• DOI: 10.1002/eat.23294

Objective Recovery from an eating disorder (ED) may be defined differently by different stakeholders. We set out to understand the definition of ED recovery from the perspective of patients, their parents, and clinicians. Method We recruited patients with EDs (n = 24, ages 12–23 years) representing different diagnoses (anorexia nervosa n = 17, bulimia nervosa n = 4, binge‐ED n = 2, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder n = 1), along with their parents (n = 20), dietitians (n = 11), therapists (n = 14), and primary care providers (n = 9) from three sites: Boston Children's Hospital, University of Michigan C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, and Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital. In‐depth, semi‐structured, qualitative interviews explored participants' definitions of recovery. Interviews were analyzed using inductive data‐driven thematic analysis. Statistical analyses followed to examine the distribution within each theme by respondent type. Results Qualitative analysis resulted in the emergence of four overarching themes of ED recovery: (a) psychological well‐being, (b) eating‐related behaviors/attitudes, (c) physical markers, and (d) self‐acceptance of body image. Endorsement of themes two and four did not significantly differ between patients, parents, and clinicians. Clinicians were significantly more likely to endorse theme one (χ2 = 9.90, df = 2, p = .007, φc = 0.356) and theme three (χ2 = 6.42, df = 2, p = .04, φc = 0.287) than patients and parents. Discussion Our study demonstrates overwhelming support for psychological markers as indicators of ED recovery by all three groups. Clinicians should remain open to additional markers of recovery such as body acceptance and eating‐related behaviors/emotions that may be of critical importance to patients and their caregivers.