↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative evaluation of team and family perceptions of family-based treatment delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) for adolescent Anorexia Nervosa during the COVID-19 pandemic

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Eating Disorders, July 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A qualitative evaluation of team and family perceptions of family-based treatment delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) for adolescent Anorexia Nervosa during the COVID-19 pandemic
Published in
Journal of Eating Disorders, July 2022
DOI 10.1186/s40337-022-00631-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Couturier, Danielle Pellegrini, Laura Grennan, Maria Nicula, Catherine Miller, Paul Agar, Cheryl Webb, Kristen Anderson, Melanie Barwick, Gina Dimitropoulos, Sheri Findlay, Melissa Kimber, Gail McVey, Rob Paularinne, Aylee Nelson, Karen DeGagne, Kerry Bourret, Shelley Restall, Jodi Rosner, Kim Hewitt-McVicker, Jessica Pereira, Martha McLeod, Caitlin Shipley, Sherri Miller, Ahmed Boachie, Marla Engelberg, Samantha Martin, Jennifer Holmes-Haronitis, James Lock

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient eating disorder care, including Family-Based Treatment (FBT), rapidly transitioned from in-person to virtual delivery in many programs. This paper reports on the experiences of teams and families with FBT delivered by videoconferencing (FBT-V) who were part of a larger implementation study. Four pediatric eating disorder programs in Ontario, Canada, including their therapists (n = 8), medical practitioners (n = 4), administrators (n = 6), and families (n = 5), participated in our study. We provided FBT-V training and delivered clinical consultation. Therapists recorded and submitted their first four FBT-V sessions. Focus groups were conducted with teams and families at each site after the first four FBT-V sessions. Focus group transcripts were transcribed verbatim and key concepts were identified through line-by-line reading and categorizing of the text. All transcripts were double-coded. Focus group data were analyzed using directed and summative qualitative content analysis. Analysis of focus group data from teams and families revealed four overarching categories-pros of FBT-V, cons of FBT-V, FBT-V process, and suggestions for enhancing and improving FBT-V. Pros included being able to treat more patients and developing a better understanding of family dynamics by being virtually invited into the family's home (identified by teams), as well as convenience and comfort (identified by families). Both teams and families recognized technical difficulties as a potential con of FBT-V, yet teams also commented on distractions in family homes as a con, while families expressed difficulties in developing therapeutic rapport. Regarding FBT-V process, teams and families discussed the importance and challenge of patient weighing at home. In terms of suggestions for improvement, teams proposed assessing a family's suitability or motivation for FBT-V to ensure it would be appropriate, while families strongly suggested implementing hybrid models of FBT in the future which would include some in-person and some virtual sessions. Team and family perceptions of FBT-V were generally positive, indicating acceptability and feasibility of this treatment. Suggestions for improved FBT-V practices were made by both groups, and require future investigation, such as examining hybrid models of FBT that involve in-person and virtual elements. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04678843 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 13 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Psychology 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,077,623
of 24,689,476 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Eating Disorders
#312
of 917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,102
of 423,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Eating Disorders
#16
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,689,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.